To get an example of why climate politics in Australia is so enraging, witness the last 24 hours.
Michael McCormack, acting Nationals leader, yesterday decided to push back against any suggestions of a 2050 net zero emissions target by saying agriculture would be exempt.
His specific reason? The basis for exempting what, in non-drought years, makes up about 16% of Australia’s emissions? “We are not going to hurt those wonderful people that put food on our table.”
But by this morning, McCormack had received backing from within the government for an exemption, and it had expanded from a “wonderful people” exemption to — according to the Coalition’s mouthpiece — exempting all emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries (EITEs). The argument run by The Australian was that Labor had exempted EITEs in its carbon pricing schemes (CPRS).
We have to stop at this point because there are so many caveats and assumptions in the last six sentences that continuing without itemising them risks deep confusion.
First, there is no 2050 net zero target, despite the press gallery trying to heroicise Scott Morrison for saying words like “preferably”. Even senior gallery journalists are peddling the narrative that Morrison is bravely shifting the Coalition toward climate action — the same journalists who instantly scream “Labor leadership crisis” if there’s any dispute within opposition ranks over climate.
In fact, Morrison is investing in gas, studies of coal-fired power stations and discredited carbon capture and storage, designed to prolong the use of coal-fired power stations. Morrison’s cheerleaders never mention this.
Second, Labor indeed omitted EITEs from its carbon pricing scheme — a key reason why the original CPRS was rubbish and deserved to be voted down. But a 2050 net zero target is not a carbon price. It’s merely a commitment — like the 26-28% reduction commitment made for the Paris Agreement, which we will miss by miles.
Third, net zero by 2050 for Australia is too little, too late.
Fourth, removing major chunks of Australia’s emissions sources from policy action simply means the sectors remaining within the commitment need to do more. Other sectors will have to achieve greater emissions reductions to make up for the absence of 16% of emissions from the target.
Fifth, the EU is already working on a relatively straightforward solution to the problem of trade-exposed industries — impose levies on imports from countries failing to take sufficient action on climate change, to overcome the unfair advantage imports from the latter have over products from domestic sources where climate action is taken seriously. Boris Johnson is pursuing this as well. Australia would, naturally, be excluded from such a carbon club for its agricultural exports.
Sixth, the government has spent years funding “soil magic” carbon sequestration schemes, which work on the unproven basis that carbon can be safely and permanently stored in soil, and there is regular speculation the government will expand such schemes because they act as handouts to farmers to do what, in many cases, they would do anyway. If agriculture is omitted because of a “wonderful people” exemption, what’s the basis for continuing to fund soil magic programs?
Seventh, and possibly most pointedly, actual farming groups like the National Farmers Federation support an economy-wide 2050 net zero target with agriculture included.
On we go. The fact that within 24 hours mooted exemptions expanded from agriculture to all trade-exposed industries illustrates the complete unreality within which climate policy is considered by this government and reported by a press gallery that increasingly looks unfit for purpose.
If we use McCormack’s “wonderful people” category, aren’t there many more deserving recipients of exemptions? What about regional manufacturing? Or mining (which is now the Nationals’ true constituency)? Transport is crucial in regional areas, too. The heavy vehicle sector primarily move through regional areas. Why is agriculture singled out when so many other deserving sectors should be looked after?
But as we saw when Kevin Rudd was putting together, and then watering down, his CPRS, you can get trampled in the rush of vested interests demanding exemptions from emissions reduction policies, each one of them explaining why they deserve it.
What’s more relevant is the way the press gallery continues to run a protection racket for Scott Morrison on climate, lauding minimal changes in wording as masterful climate actions, when this government remains committed to expanding fossil fuels, and is already watering down a non-existent target unaccompanied by any implementation plan.
Inoculate yourself against the spin
Get Crikey for just $1 a week and protect yourself against news that goes viral.
If you haven’t joined us yet, subscribe today to get your first 12 weeks for $12 and get the journalism you need to navigate the spin.
Peter Fray
Editor-in-chief of Crikey
Leave a comment
The basic underlying philosophy of Morrison and his government: it’s great if you can make people believe that you’re doing something constructive, even if you’re not; if you can keep them unaware of what you’re actually doing, that’s even better.
Morrison is consistently a day late and a dollar short.
As a farmer carbon sequestration and carbon offsets by vegetation retention are realistic contributions by (cattle) farmers to carbon mitigation. It is simply good practice and encouraging this by payments to farmers is not a sop but an invitation to good farming and soil management. We have done it for years and it would be nice to get recognition and reward for good husbandry.
The farmers are slow learners. And they can do nothing without “compensation”, but demand everything – particularly from the public purse – which is odd given they’re all for the free market and think socialism is the devil in action.
Be careful with your broad brush there. Many intelligent and capable farmers handle the problems they are faced without looking for the help of others. Don’t put them in the whinger bucket. Doesn’t help.
So the pork director and the pork controller are desperately embarking on the destruction of more Australian industries, including export ag, which will get hit with sanctions and boycotts, will run out of water, will steadily decay under an escalating climate derangement. Morrison, Abetz, Barilaro, and of course the controller Murdoch, hate this country with a vengeance.
And any ground water may be contaminated by fracking – in the driest continent in the world.
Don’t fall for McGimmick’s lame appeal to be seen as the farmer’s friend. It’s merely a populist headline. As usual there is more to see that is being shrouded behind this distraction.
You don’t think rural people can recognise environmental damage as good as the city folk? Their “representative”, however, is invariably an old-school energy enthusiast or mining shill. And SloMo, as the governing partner, is in their thrall.
So why do people in rural electorates keep voting for them?
Almost a rhetorical question. The reasons are myriad, take your pick from gerrymandering, pork barrelling, rorts, historical resistance to change, apathy, inability to get opposition policy traction, (the latter usually due to media distortion and misrepresentation – and some admittedly poor salesmanship of course.) And of course the $64,000 question, why do people vote against what looks like their own interest? Globally & consistently.
BTW, if it wasn’t obvious, I wasn’t claiming ALL our beloved country cousins to be climate crisis-savvy.
Gotta get the cows in, see ya!
Pure self interest.
Inbreeding?
Appealing to Parkenson : try kindred traveling.
Remember the entire population of Nat Party electorates are not all Farmers. The education level is lower than urban areas, the outside interests are limited and conversations more village pump.
But the main problem is, thinking (where possible), makes peoples head hurt.
It has been said many times; this cou try is crying out for real journalists instead we’ve got a bunch of self-proclaimed pitifully poor reporters a bunch of hacks really who have no interest in truth just a wage packet, which is obviously overpaying their total lack of skills, and pride.
Daibhin – Let’s discuss this further. In fact, let’s have a poll as to who are the biggest apologists for Morrison’s inaction, spin and lies. We should have two categories – Murdoch and The Rest. I can’t vote in the Murdoch category because I refuse to read anything of his stuff. With regard to The Rest, I nominate David Crowe as the worst, closely followed by Peter Hartcher.
Others?
Fran Kelly. David Spears.
TBF, Fran could barely contain her derision with the gNat leader this morning.
Decorum rools.
BK, Murphy, idiots like Toby Jug & LuxuryEscapedfromhis Grasp?
Just off the top of my head.
Toby “Razz” Ralph? As featured regularly on ABC’s The Dum – as he was Dec 18 last?
On to do an advert for “Shredderjiklian’s Grown-ups Government” (as opposed to “Brand X – Andrews/Palaszczuk/McGowan/Labor/lock-up state governments”) and how good that was : then a minute or two later going on about “the fibs” told when breaking Covid quarantine (with the inherent possibility of spread that poses).
Illustrating “what usually happens when grown-ups are treated as grown-ups and allowed to carry on unfettered by regulation”.
In effect why those Labor states were right in doing what they did – but “Razz” didn’t see that.