Under Tony Abbott, it seemed that the hardline climate denialists of the Liberal Party had achieved a remarkable victory. A man who declared he would not lead a party that wasn’t as committed to climate action as he was had been purged from the leadership in a successful putsch; his replacement was a man who dismissed climate science as “crap”, and he was successfully savaging Labor for taking climate action, based on an entirely invented scare campaign about price rises.
But now, remarkably, they have gone one better. The problem with Abbott was always that the man he forced out, the man who crossed the floor to vote for an emissions trading scheme, might always strike back. And strike back he did, sending Abbott packing from the prime ministership in 2015. But what looked like a defeat for climate denialists has become a remarkable win: Malcolm Turnbull, has joined the denialist camp himself.
Now the Liberals are savaging Labor for taking action on climate change, again based on a fictional scare campaign about price rises, but with “energy security” the new, and every bit as fictional, bogeyman. This time the target is both federal Labor, which remains committed to an emissions trading scheme and a stronger renewable energy target, and state Labor governments. As under Abbott, the policy the Liberals offer the electorate to pretend they take climate change seriously is discredited: Greg Hunt’s “Direct Action” plan was dismissed by economists, soil experts and scientists (and it’s now been abandoned — even Liberals knew it was a ridiculously expensive fig leaf); now, in the absence of any emissions abatement policy beyond the Renewable Energy Target it wants to abandon, the pretence is the fiction of “clean coal”. But that has been rejected comprehensively by the power industry, which has no interest in investing in an immensely expensive technology that delivers minimal emission abatement and which will be left stranded by the rapidly falling cost of renewables.
But that’s no problem because, best of all, there’s no longer a Malcolm Turnbull lurking in the background. The one-time threat who wanted real action on climate change has been transformed into the leader of the new denialist campaign.
This, for the denialists, is surely the sweetest victory of all.
We’ve come a long way from 2007, when John Howard made an election commitment to introduce “the world’s most comprehensive emissions trading scheme”. Despite being one of the world’s most emission intensive economies, we’ve had ten years of delay since then — delay occasioned by the incompetence and cowardice of Kevin Rudd, who put together a dog of an ETS and then repeatedly made it worse, delay occasioned by the cynical denialism of Tony Abbott, and now delay occasioned by another incompetent and cowardly Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull. The only success in that time was the low-cost, effective emissions trading scheme established by Julia Gillard with the Greens, then dumped by Abbott.
What’s happened in that decade? Seven of the ten hottest years in history globally; 2016 was the hottest year ever recorded, beating 2015, which beat 2014, which beat 2010, which was ahead of 2013. And four of the hottest years ever recorded in Australia have occurred here since 2013.
What hasn’t happened is any global leadership by Australia, despite Australia being the developed economy most exposed to the massive costs of climate change; we’ve reverted to the mid-Howard years approach of playing climate laggard, demanding big developing economies do the heavy lifting on emissions abatement.
That the Turnbull government is gleefully handing around lumps of coal as a stunt while the country sets new heat records would be a macabre joke, except the joke is on younger Australians, who will face the twin costs of climate change and decarbonisation that the denialists of the Liberal have ensured they will pay.
How hot does it have to get before the angry old white men of the Liberal Party accept the need for real climate action? The answer is, it will never be hot enough for that — they’d rather the planet cook than concede they’re wrong, or let someone other than themselves govern.
I once thought Trumble’s legacy would be the third-rate NBN (rather than the Rudd Rolls Royce model) but now it appears he will be infamous as the frog who came slowly to the boil…and took us with him.
The question is, why?
Well said Zut. I will have a stab at answering your question:
The two major parties now represent an obstructionist coalition funded by an immensely powerful ecocidal global industry in order to perpetuate an unrepresentative status quo. As such, both the planet and democracy are in serious crisis. The more this crisis deepens, the less the mainstream media can afford to host an honest discussion of it through fear of alienating both its readers and its paymasters. Thus, we bury our heads in the sand like the proverbial ostrich and cook in the pot like the proverbial frog.
I take issue with your comment “The two major parties now represent…”.
How can you link the Labor Party with the Coalition on climate change policies?
Firstly, Labor has EXTENSIVE policies out there on this issue, including the re-introduction of a price on carbon, when they are returned to government.
Secondly, the Coalition doesn’t have ANY policies…so is “obstructionist” all by itself!!
Despite their attractive product positioning, ‘centre-left’ governments come to the legislative battle armed with a plastic butter knife and no serious conviction. No effective policy is implemented and right-wing obstructionism provides the exculpatory narrative. The masses are distracted by the false spectacle and the media generates revenue over a non-event. That is how the fossil fuel industry maintains control.
I take it you were missing in action when Labor’s Julia Gillard PM introduced an emissions trading scheme? And very effective it was too!
It was removed by that obstructionist mob you keep trying to link Labor with…so now our carbon emissions have soared.
Funny thing that!!
CML, I don’t deny the good intentions of a few in the Gillard government but I am looking at a systemic picture in political-economic terms. If you’re still interested, here is an article that elaborates on my point:
http://theconversation.com/the-fossil-fuelled-political-economy-of-australian-elections-61394
Somebody, fortunately, has whispered to Mr Trumble that hydro pumped storage is a thing. So even with his morals of a car salesman, his backing of this self evidentiary necessary addition to our networks may accidentally save his arse (tho’ I’m cynically convinced his only reason for backing it is to give Marshall something to belt Wetherall over the head with in SA).
There is hope. Some angry old white men have turned. What out for climate leadership from America and their Conservatives.
Whats the chances that my great grand children and beyond will look back on this period of time and consider the history of the likes of Abbott and Turnbull with the same affection as this generation has of Hitler.The possible pending disasters caused could be of the same magnitude.
‘How hot does it have to get before the angry old white men of the Liberal Party accept the need for real climate action?’ I’ve been pondering that. I think that part of the problem is that the frog just doesn’t know that it is boiling. The Coalition cane toads look around, note that the weather is a little strange but that we are still coping (more or less) and decide on this basis that nothing has to be done yet. They can’t quite believe that even if everyone started rigorously winding back GHG emission now (and we are at least a decade away from this) two degrees of warming is ALREADY locked in. Two degrees of warming is of course the generally accepted threshold beyond there is a 50/50 chance of runaway warming about which we will be able to do nothing. Of course the scientists may be wrong ………
This kind of willful ignorance may characterise some of the paleoconservatives but Turnbull is, under a level of feeble psychological supression I’m sure, all too aware of the reality of the situation. I wonder how he can concile his private thoughts about the future his grandchilderen face and the policy position he has now adopted to save his career. If he had one shred of integrity, he would fall on his sword and denounce his colleagues as retrograde venal pariahs.
Quite right Douglas. The conundrum is that 350.org’s Climate Emergency campaign, while amply justified, does not prepare us for the long, long grind. Bushfires or Australia’s legendary 1942 war effort offers models of do-or-die emergency from which people will rapidly disengage at the urging of populist saboteurs, as from the ALP-Greens carbon tax. We need GHG emissions elimination, not just reduction and that must happen in the remaining first half of the 21st century.
@ Murray Scott – “We need GHG emissions elimination, not just reduction and that must happen in the remaining first half of the 21st century”
Amen to that! If the world is to achieve “net zero emissions” by 2100, that’s in the next 80 years, the nations that can zeroise easiest must decarbonise first. The know-how and technology proven in the process will then aid the laggards. The only thing still “reducing” should be the list of nations yet to zeroise emissions.
That could include Australia by 2050. However our right wing is still getting rich exporting gas, coal and potentially oil. Our left wing is besotted with wind backed by gas. Neither side will easily submit to decarbonisation.
If this article speaks for the most effective movements in Oz against carbon emissions, we are doomed. The message is crippled by self-righteous denial as much as the emitting side. Posing “renewables” as the by-definition alternative to fossil carbon is a suicidal denial of non-carbon fuel. It is blindingly obvious that we must go nuclear to make significant progress in eliminating fossil carbon.
While we continue to chant off, “renewables, renewables” we will continue to be dismissed as an ideological irrelevance. If instead we speak in terms of “non-carbon” , we are more likely to find bipartisan support. And our thus-framed legislation would more likely survive a change of government.
Thanks to the Fukushima nuclear disaster, the broken power-plant will probably be poisoning the Pacific Ocean for thousands of years and only a fool would consider it the answer to anything. Best we put our energies into capturing the sun’s rays through storage technologies. Besides which, apart from attacking “renewables” in nonsensical terms, you have completely failed to give an explanation at to how they are “suicidal”. The sun’s rays are free and clean. Tidal action will be around for a few years yet and the wind blows quite efficiently – just go for a wee drive through Europe and you will see plenty of wind collection with no drama or fuss.
A lemming asks, “what’s suicidal?” and leaps into space, shouting “yahoo!”
No one died from radiation around that broken power station at the time or since, but thousands were dying in Tokyo from stress as the anti-nuclear movement chanted to them, “you’re all gonna die, you’re all gonna die”. Against advice, the PM ordered the area around the power station to be evacuated and a further thousand people died in consequence. A victory for malice, a victory for bigotry, and heavy damage to the only proven non-carbon technology that was providing heavy-duty carbon-free power to Japan.
Meanwhile, we are progressively replacing all coal-fired power plant with wind-backed-by-gas. Csiro has advised the Australian government that grid stability requires that wind can only be a max of 40%. The Danes and Germans were similarly advised. After the coal, we will have to replace all open-cycle gas turbines, and the windmills that need them, with the more sluggish steam turbines. – Powered by a certain non-carbon fuel, demanded by the grandkids, currently growing up.
Thousands died due to chant stress? You sound unbalanced, feller?
I too was shocked to see that line which is funny coz the Dodger is usually horribly dispassionate, dreary and direct about his beloved nukes.
The strain of his delusion seems to be overwhelming him.
It will soon become apparent that Obama’s Fukushima cover-up is the greatest crime in human history.
Nudiefish questions whether thousands of people were killed by antinuclear fearmongering. Try: “NYTimes com 2015 09 22 science when radiation isnt the real risk”
Those were immediate deaths, due to fanaticism. No one died from gamma radiation at Fukushima. The global death toll due to AGW, from not going nuclear, will be far more.
Dear Roger. I suggest that you consult a story published only yesterday. [See: https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/helen-caldicott-the-fukushima-nuclear-meltdown-continues-unabated,10019%5D
They have photographed the radiation damage for the first time. There is no known fix for what has happened. “The reactor complex was built adjacent to a mountain range and millions of gallons of water emanate from the mountains daily beneath the reactor complex, causing some of the earth below the reactor buildings to partially liquefy. As the water flows beneath the damaged reactors, it immerses the three molten cores and becomes extremely radioactive as it continues its journey into the adjacent Pacific Ocean.”
You either are willfully blind to the dangers of radiation poisoning, have no idea how cancer works, are very ignorant, or you are on a ideological bandwagon where fact don’t mater.
Nuclear energy is neither clean, safe, or particularly cheap – that’s why so few companies are investing in them. The future is in renewable energy and the entire world is moving in that direction, albeit in some cases like Australia, kicking and screaming. Solar or wind energy will not poison the planet or leave drums of toxic waste moldering in their containers for centuries and making there way into the groundwater. Nor will wind-farms explode and cause thyroid cancer in children. This isn’t even debatable, it is happening now.