The Western Australian state election has made life for the troubled Turnbull government even worse. The WA Liberals’ deal with One Nation, and Arthur Sinodinos’ idiotic use of the phrase “more sophisticated” about Hanson and her crazies, has created an unwanted association between the government and the racist extremist. When Hanson reiterated her scepticism about vaccinations and her enthusiasm for Vladimir Putin on the weekend, the Prime Minister was only too happy to find issues on which he could distance himself from her. But a Labor victory in the west, especially after Turnbull has been conspicuous in his absence from the state, will redouble questions about his leadership, even if not quite in the same way the ousting of Campbell Newman was a body blow for Tony Abbott.
But changing leaders won’t fix the problem that the Liberals are on the wrong side of two of the biggest policy debates in Australia: energy and housing affordability. In both cases rational policymaking has given way to scare campaigns. Treasurer Scott Morrison admitted negative gearing had “excesses” but pulled back and became its greatest defender and ardent critic of Labor’s plans to overhaul it; the government began investigating capital gains tax changes but had to signal a retreat when word leaked. Now the government is relying heavily on a successful housing affordability package in the budget to restore its political fortunes, ignoring the fact that budgets rarely provide any lasting improvement for a government — and ignoring the fact that it has abandoned its key policy lever on affordability, tax.
And in a policy rinse, repeat, the government included an emissions intensity scheme in its climate action review announced at the start of December, before abandoning it within days under pressure from the denialist right. In January that morphed into an absurd “clean coal” propaganda push linked with a scare campaign about renewable energy that had Turnbull dancing on the head of a pin when it was revealed he’d been explicitly told renewables had nothing to do with blackouts in South Australia.
As with capital gains tax and negative gearing reform, there’s widespread consensus among economists about the effectiveness of an emission intensity scheme for finding the most efficient way to transition to renewable energy, but it’s been shelved by the Liberals as a tool for political reasons.
Problematically, however, the policy ground is shifting under the government. Not merely has the energy industry rejected “clean coal” out of hand, big power generators EnergyAustralia and AGL Energy have both called for an emissions intensity scheme, as has BHP. And while big business in Australia has a track record of “supporting” climate action but bagging whatever mechanism governments come up with, now the National Farmers Federation has called for one as well. The government’s ruling out of an EIS in December is now looking very Canute-like. And not even the property industry can be relied on any more — last week the CEO of Stockland called for changes to rein in the “excesses” of negative gearing.
These problems will remain there, demanding a response, no matter who is Prime Minister. Perhaps a leader from the party’s right could, in a Little Golden Books version of “only Nixon could go to China”, force the Liberals to shift toward where mainstream thinking is. But that wouldn’t deal with the climate denialist Nationals, and anyway, it’s far more likely a Dutton or Abbott would simply revert to the constant scare campaigns that marked Abbott’s time even as prime minister. It didn’t work for him and it hasn’t worked for the Abbott-lite currently in the Lodge. Some deeper thinking is required in Liberal ranks than who has the numbers.
“It’s far more likely a Dutton or Abbott would simply revert to the constant scare campaigns that marked Abbott’s time even as prime minister.”
This says it all about the emptiness of those who come to power on the back of scare-mongering and negativity, as Abbott did. Being in office requires a thought-out philosophy, not mindless negative slogans culled from the comments of focus groups. Our political careerist class lacks this philosophical compass, so is sadly more effective in opposition than in power.
“there’s widespread consensus among economists about the effectiveness of an emission intensity scheme for finding the most efficient way to transition to renewable energy”
That’s wrong, misleadingly wrong. It is a price on carbon that is recognised as efficient in suppressing emissions of carbon.
Renewables? Fear that the Earth is running out of non-renewables is superstitious nonsense; any geologist will tell you it is not true. Anyone concerned for our grandchildren should admit that the problem is carbon and what we should replace it with. If an alternative requires gas backup, then it fails to replace gas.
Roger, gas is a sensible stop-gap technology between coal fired power stations and renewables.
Gas emits less carbon dioxide (for it is this which is the problem) per MJ produced, and can be used in higher efficiency generation technologies, namely combined cycle gas turbines.
Gas will be needed as energy companies invest in a mixture of wind and solar technologies (primarily) as well as storage solutions, such as hydro storage.
I can’t see how your favoured nuclear solution would be financially viable, or even provide remotely cheap power.
Wayne, all sides of Australian politics seem to agree that gas will tide us over until a nuclear-free carbon-free solution comes along. Until then, we can placate our consciences by installing wind backed by gas, solar backed by gas, geothermal backed by gas, tidal backed by gas and anything-except-nuclear backed by gas. However, gas used to backup an intermittent supply must use the horribly inefficient open-cycle-gas-turbines. Since we are making a buck on our plentiful gas reserves, we can still get fat and feel virtuous at the same time.
As international pressure mounts, a further gesture of reduction would be to shift from open-cycle gas to combined-cycle gas, which as you say is much more efficient. Without their backup, the windmills on the skylines will continue to generate prayers for the faithful, but they will be unable to contribute power to the grid.
Baseload power in 2100 for ten billion people is going to be either carbon-based or nuclear-based. Political parties who find a carbon tax much too difficult to pay the difference will be overtaken by mass production of modular reactors.
I don’t think that anybody agrees that nuclear is in our future.
The advances with renewable technologies will continue to make them cheaper as well as more reliable.
Open cycle gas turbines are of similar efficiency to older thermal power stations, so will still emit less carbon dioxide for the power produced.
One of the solar thermal power plants in Spain already set a record for producing power for 37 days, 24 hours a day.
Geothermal is not an intermittent supply. Nor is tidal, or wave – these are cyclic.
Pumped hydro can back the intermittent renewables as much as gas can.
They’re also on the wrong side of history, the way I read it.
Where were the BCA, the energy companies, BHP and the NFF when Tony was raging about the wrecking ball Carbon Tax? Their silence was deafening as I remember it. Most of them were working/donating to get Labour out and the LNP in. Now they are having second thoughts it seems, a bit late now that Tony and Tony II have painted themselves into a corner
It is telling that the NFF are suggesting emission intensity scheme while their supposed representatives the Nationals are climate denialists. Not so surprising that country folk are looking for someone else to vote for, although they are barked up the wrong tree with One Nation.