The Climate Wars Are Over?

The newly elected Labor government has an opportunity to "end the climate wars in Australia.", or so they have been quick to say. In fact, Albanese promised to do just that in his victory speech, and affirmed this week that his government would take action on climate change alongside the members of the "Quad" in Tokyo.

ABC News, May 22

It is certainly good news that the Liberal - National coalition has been served a resounding defeat. Their wavering between explicit climate denial and reliance on "future technologies" to decarbonise have left Australia a global laughing stock, and seen them thrown out of office.

Conservative commentators have already started to trot out the tired old lines - that the Labor policy of climate action will mean higher taxes, it will destroy our industries, blah blah blah. They may be on the back foot, but the fact that arch-conservatives like Angus Taylor and Barnaby Joyce have held onto their seats means the 47th parliament won't be free of their attacks.

But will the Labor government do any better on the world stage? Will their election really put the issue of climate change to bed?

But who Labor has in mind with this statement, I contend, is just as much the colours to their left (on this issue, at least): the Greens and Teal Independents, who have swept to victory in inner-city seats on a platform of major climate action. These policies exceed the ALP's by far, including such boat rocking details as no new coal mines and 75% of Australia's new vehicle sales to be EV.

During the campaign, Climate Analytics rated their 2030 targets (a 60% emission decrease for the Teals and a 75% decrease for the Greens) as both probably consistent with keeping within 1.5c of global warming by 2100, while Labor's policy of a 43% reduction would lead to 2c of warming.

ANALYSIS: If the rest of the world took the same level of #climate action as Australia's political parties, the LNP would bring us 3-4˚C of warming, Labor 2˚C, Teal Independents 1.5˚C (upper band) & the Greens comfortably within 1.5˚C. https://t.co/PxySTyBd4x #AusVotes #Auspol pic.twitter.com/5qvNT0O7dC

— Climate Analytics (@CA_Latest) May 5, 2022

When Labor's policy for this election was announced, Prime Minister Scott Morrison cast doubt on Labor sticking to their own policy, calling it an "opening bid" for negotiations with the Greens. Albanese and Chris Bowen shot down this statement, flatly stated that the ALP won't increase its 2030 emissions cut target - the only one which will have meaningful impact on averting runaway climate change. They wouldn't, they assured the media in February, be doing any deals with the Greens, and nor would they be willing to move their emissions targets to form government.

As I write this post, it looks like being a moot point, with Labor probably winning enough seats to form a majority government, but that still isn't set in stone. Albanese couldn't have been certain of that as he made his victory speech, which begs the question: why make this point so central to his speech?

Does it signal that the results are a clear mandate for action exceeding the policy he took to the election? Was ScoMo right, and is Labor prepared to budge?

Or does it signal that Albanese will face down the millions of voters who voted for action to match the science, and tell them - sorry, that is just too much?

Does it mean that, like the last terms of Labor government, anything more than token gestures and incrementalism will be rubbished by Albanese as impossible, and anyone calling for policies in line with 1.5c will be slammed as out to wreck the Labor government and get the coalition re-elected?

To be fair to the ALP under our new Prime Minister, the policy Albanese has taken to the election is a pretty big increment; in fact, it is the most ambitious target an Australian government has ever attempted to get through parliament. Despite making ratifying Kyoto an election promise, the Rudd Labor government only offered a 25% by 2020 target if an agreement could be reached at the failed Copenhagen summit, and "between 5% and 15% reduction by 2020" in the CPRS legislation that was rejected by by Coalition and the Greens. It set a 2050 target of 60% reductions.

Gillard's Carbon Pricing mechanism had an explicit goal of 5% reduction on 2000 levels by 2020. The Australia Institute extrapolated the real emissions reduction, had the legislation not been repealed in 2013, to be down to 509 Mt of c02e - 25 million tonnes lower than what actually happened in 2020, exactly in line with the 5% target. That projection is somewhat sketchy, as it doesn't take into account other factors that may have made the policy seem more effective in 2012.

Mainstream NGOs and the parliamentary Greens agreed to fall in behind the Gillard government policy, pushing the climate movement into giving up our independence for disastrous Say Yes! rallies - and once the coal barons unleashed a mass campaign that saw a climate denier made Prime Minister and that legislation repealed, the movement was stuck in the doldrums. It took major global stimulus - the School Strike 4 Climate movement in 2018 - for climate activists to find their voice again.

Taking that polarising and ultimately debilitating legislation at face value, if it continued at the same rate, it would have meant a reduction to 445 Mt by 2030; the act set a 2050 target of 80% emissions reductions. The Albanese government's Powering Australia policy target of 43% reduction (on 2005 emissions of 611 Mt) means a 2030 reduction to 351 Mt. Clearly, there has been a major shift in what is accepted as possible since 2011.

But however big an increment the incoming government may be aiming for, it is still, unfortunately, not in line with the science. Climate science demands all nations across the world globally make major, not incremental, changes within the decade; climate justice demands Australia leverage our fairly unique position as a fossil fuel exporter with major renewable assets to not only match the world, but lead the way.

Both the Greens and the new Teal actors on the stage have already started signalling that they will push Labor for action in line with the science.

Monique Ryan in the Guardian, 23rd May

Just like that last Labor government, Albanese is going to face internal battles, even to implement the policy as it stands without massive caveats. Opinions have changed, but institutions are slower to shift -it feels like a long time ago, but it is only three short years since the CFMEU was organising pro-coal rallies in Queensland.

The climate wars are just beginning. The movement needs to be ready to take to the streets and fight for climate action, not be lulled into complacency by the election of Greens and Teals. There will be push back from the right; there will be internal pressure to water down the electoral policy; and even the pressure from the parliamentary left can't be relied upon - Allegra Spender, the independent for Wentworth, already indicated she would settle for 'at least 50%' reductions' by 2030. If the rest of the Teal independents settled for negotiating this goal with Labor, it would still take them out of the "upper band" of a 1.5c trajectory.

2030 is less than three full terms of government away. There is a vanishing window to reduce emissions before we cross the threshold of 1.5c. While it is a global target, if we are to do our part, we need to get the ball rolling - now. There's no time to put the heavy lifting off to.

 

We have an opportunity under this government to get real climate action in line with the science. And above all, our movement needs to remain fiercely independent, and not fall into line behind the ALP policy - or any compromise target between the politics and the science - like we did in 2011.