CLIMATE DISRUPTION

Knowing as we do the urgent need to reduce greenhouse emissions to ensure we avoid the impacts of catastrophic climate change, the Australian government's internal wrangling over the cost of energy is depressing to say the least.

We see daily images of the deadly effects of climate change, which intensifies and prolongs storms, droughts, wildfires, and floods. In fact the US reportedly spent as much on disaster management in 2017 alone, as it did in 30 years from 1980 to 2010.

However, we are now becoming aware of other impacts. “Climate disruption” is becoming the leading threat to our built environment, an accelerant of armed conflict, and a leading cause of mass migration.

So why has an issue that should demand a united response become so intensely divisive?

The right wing's ideological opposition to anything proposed by the left, and vice versa, regardless of how illogical that opposition sometimes appears, is stalling what little progress that has been made to date. The fear tactics, famously employed by Tony Abbott over the carbon tax are now being redeployed, this time focusing on rising electricity prices. Of course it's all the fault of renewable energy, and those misguided souls who think coal burning is dirty, unhealthy, and a driver of climate change.

If electricity costs are so critical, why did governments sell off the networks in the first instance?

Sure, electricity prices have risen sharply, but how bad are they really? For example, how many of us complain about that indispensable daily $5 cappuccino, when for the same amount everything in the home can be activated, 24/7, by the simple flick of a switch?

If the government is serious about giving relief from rising prices, why not look at fuel prices? Through necessity, petrol costs many rural Australians far more than electricity, but of course a large chunk of that cost is tax, so a scare campaign over that might backfire badly.

Climate change is real, and needs real action to lower emissions, and to achieve that we must have bipartisanship from all sides if the political spectrum.

            - John Edwards

 This article was originally published in the VOICES FOR THE EARTH column in The Daily Examiner on July 30, 2018. 

THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT'S CLIMATE POLICY REVIEW

During 2017 the federal Government is committed to a climate policy review to determine how Australia will meet the pledge it made in Paris to reduce its carbon emissions.   It pledged a reduction of 28% below 2005 levels by 2030.

The Government’s current policy “Direct Action”, involving paying polluters from tax revenues to improve their behaviour, is widely acknowledged to be unequal to the task.

So the review is important to Australia’s ability to meet its international obligations.  Also important is the need to canvass a range of possibilities to select the most appropriate.

As electricity generation accounts for about a third of our total carbon emissions, it makes sense that it should be the focus of efforts to reduce emissions.

In December Energy Minister Frydenberg discussed what could be considered during the forthcoming review.  One of the options was an emissions intensity scheme on the electricity generation industry.

Within two days this was decisively dropped.  The reason was the angry reaction from the climate-change-denying rump of the Coalition.  Consequently the Prime Minister declared the Government would not be taking any action that would increase the cost of energy.

What is particularly interesting about this knee-jerk reaction is that an emissions intensity scheme on electricity generation was considered the best approach by a number of authorities advising the Government on energy and climate change. These include the Climate Change Authority, the Chief Scientist and the Australian Energy Market Commission.

In pointing out the folly of the Government dismissing options out of hand, economist Ross Gittens referred to the fact that we are not all climate deniers and that  “it’s our community and our economy  and prime ministers don’t get to dismiss options without us even being allowed to think about them and decide what we prefer”.

Furthermore modelling suggests that consumer’s electricity prices will continue to rise (as they have been doing consistently over the years) under “business as usual” but will rise less under an emissions intensity scheme than under other curbs on electricity emissions.

The Government’s refusal to consider an emissions intensity scheme makes no sense.

            - Leonie Blain

 This article was originally published in the VOICES FOR THE EARTH column in The Daily Examiner on January 23, 2017.