The implicit question at the heart of every intergenerational report has always been: “How will we care for older generations in the future?” This hasn’t changed, and won’t for as long as the older demographic remains a key battleground in the fortunes of the major political parties.
The whole “intergenerational” exercise is a rhetorical device to reframe serious concerns about Australia’s future into questions about sustainable levels of wealth and welfare for (not all) boomers. (Hint: there’s no such thing as too much financial security.)
Nevertheless, it’s hard to think of a more hypocritical time in Australian politics than the present. As Treasurer Jim Chalmers addressed the media this week about the 2023 intergenerational report, he evinced concern for the economic impact of the climate crisis, noting that it could total up to $423 billion over the next 40 years.
Never mind the fact that the Albanese government continues to invest taxpayer money in new gas production facilities for the Beetaloo Basin, keeps approving new fossil-fuel ventures, and annually allocates more than $10 billion in fossil-fuel subsidies. An International Monetary Fund report released yesterday found that the true cost of these subsidies — when taking into account the associated environmental and health costs from polluters — is more like $65 billion a year, or 2.5% of GDP.
Basic economic theory would suggest that if you wish to avoid future economic damages caused by fossil-fuel burning, then you stop fossil-fuel burning. But in this country, already the third-largest exporter of fossil fuels in the world, we spruik our massive and growing gas resources to overseas buyers, and try to keep the coal industry afloat for as long as possible by extending the life of its mines and coal-fired power stations.
It takes a metric shit-tonne of cognitive dissonance to believe that our gas and coal aren’t going to cause climate chaos in Australia, so that’s apparently what we invest in now: we call these investments “carbon credits”.
While ministers Chris Bowen and Tanya Plibersek launch a thousand happy memes about saving koalas, net-zero goals and our renewable energy revolution, large-scale renewables project development is stalling around Australia. Over the past six months, the number of renewables projects reaching sign-off roughly equals the number of new coal and gas projects approved by the federal government.
Our “new” climate policy, for those who have shut their eyes to such things since the arrival of the Albanese government, requires no actual emissions cuts from any actual polluter. That’s why the safeguard mechanism is so popular with the dirtiest industries. Instead of cutting emissions, they only need to purchase “offsets”, be they generated from trees that were never cut down or never grown.
This sleight of hand, like the mythical “carbon capture and storage” shell game, is what comes to characterise your policy platform when your independent advisory, the Climate Change Authority, is chaired by a former gas executive who also chairs the largest carbon offset developer in the country.
Many companies that make up the list of the safeguard mechanism’s “covered facilities”, such as Woodside, have already purchased all the offsets they need to avoid cutting real emissions. (Reminder: the big gas companies are extracting these fossil fuels primarily for export, for which the consequent emissions aren’t even counted by Australia.)
Our political leaders, copying the old Peter Costello intergenerational-sad-face playbook word for word, have spent the week earnestly staring into news cameras warning about the pressure on our long-term budgets. And they’re right, of course: JobSeeker rates are way below poverty levels; the cost of properly funding the NDIS and aged care is increasing; there is a housing crisis; state schools and universities are haemorrhaging; and the cost of species and land conservation, emergency services, public liability insurance, infrastructure and emergency services is set to balloon.
So what will they do about it? Similar to the Howard government, the Albanese government will push ahead with blowing a $313 billion hole (over just 10 years) in these fragile budgets by giving tax cuts to the wealthiest. No wonder social services spending is going to be tight.
In a time of rampant inequality and overlapping cost-of-living crises, we see corporate profits rising precipitously for Woolworths, Coles, Qantas, the big banks and the fossil-fuel companies. And yet, just days after his party conference passed a resolution to look at corporate tax reform, Chalmers ruled out corporate tax reform.
There is no sign yet of any long-term agenda from the Albanese government. Nothing to shift the dial on intergenerational or other forms of wealth inequality, or on housing shortages, corporate profiteering, multinational tax avoidance, or defence overspending — just a mountain of words and promises of more reviews.
Its timidity is a sad joke on us all. Sure, it’s not the Morrison government, but that’s the lowest bar. It’s a government that was voted in to do things differently, yet has become mindlessly committed to delivering what’s fundamentally the same Liberal/neoliberal program in spite of the evidence underpinning what’s required.
Minor tweaks notwithstanding. Facing the current opposition and the current media, “don’t scare the horses” could win you a good decade of doing nothing much. Albanese is a genius tactician, and he’s figured it all out.
Were the government genuinely concerned about the economic cost of climate change, it would also acknowledge that it’s probably delusional to think that a 3-degree hotter world (our current path) will bring an impost of only 0.5% of GDP.
The world as Labor knows it won’t exist at these temperatures. Sea-level rises will overwhelm our highly concentrated coastlines; fires, flood and cyclones will upend the insurance industry and billions of lives; drought will bring widespread global crop failures; water will be at a premium; migration will become unstoppable; diseases, health costs… Spare a dollar? But hell, those eight submarines will be crucial.
It’s a shame that “duty of care” remains a principle that governments refuse to apply to younger generations. We should remember that at the next election, when Labor MPs, relaxed and comfortable, pose in campaign materials with their kids.
What’s the point of an intergenerational report when future generations face a burning planet? Let us know by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
Whatever bright spark did the calculation that a 3 degree warming will result in a 0.5% reduction in GDP richly deserves the inaugural “PwC Award for Outstanding Ineptitude”……….
…….and a crash course in remedial geodynamics.
At 3 degrees of global warming, Australia would have become an archipelago, with precisely zero cities, or harbours, or electricity supply (other than what the internally displaced managed to relocate from their rooftops), or communications, or farms or any of the other things we tend to take for granted (like dry land that reliably stays that way).
The whole report sounds like a gross waste of time, money and effort, considering that it is constructed on a fallacy.
David Pocock, GET US OUT OF HERE.
Don’t forget the economic boost that sea wall construction will contribute – curtesy of Canute&Co.
https://coastal.climatecentral.org/map/11/151.1928/-33.9093/?theme=warming&map_type=multicentury_slr_comparison&basemap=roadmap&elevation_model=best_available&lockin_model=levermann_2013&refresh=true&temperature_unit=C&warming_comparison=%5B%223.0%22%2C%224.0%22%5D
Thanks for that. Kinda puts some reality into the discussion.
Pity it also ignores one of the major faults in the forecasts…………………
…..they make NO allowance for tipping points.
Mostly because there is no way of forecasting them.
But the results are dramatically different.
The last time CO2 was at TODAY’S level, the sea level was 70 METRES higher than today………………..
……..what does that tell you about forecasts that leave out critical factors?
That website is quite transparent about the research and source material it bases its modelling on (Strauss et al. 2015 / IPCC 2013).
If you have better sources, by all means post them.
The simple fact that CO2 at today’s level has not already produced 70m of sea level rise means there’s a time factor involved. That time factor being decades or centuries (or millennia) are very different propositions.
On a geological timescale, even “very fast” is a long time for humans.
Seriously………….
……if you think centuries or millennia are the relevant timescale, please don’t post any more nonsense.
I am pointing out that even using the best scientific data for modelling, there is NO WAY to factor in tipping points, which will have dramatic effects on a human time-frame.
The relevance of the sea level height to the last time CO2 was at these levels, is that it is likely that we have already passed a tipping point which will lead to a repeat of that scenario.
Which renders any “Intergenerational Report” a work of fantasy.
So which is it ? “Nobody knows” or “it’ll happen in our lifetimes” ?
Sure. And that tipping point might still take a couple of hundred years to produce the outcome.
So we’re back at DOOMED. In which case, why bother doing anything at all ?
Or, we’re back at, “well we haven’t fallen off the cliff yet, but we know it may be immanent, so we better start pedaling as fast as possible in the other direction.” A Pollyanna version of (and I can’t recall whom I’m quoting) “The situation is hopeless. We must take the next step.”
For some light reading on post Apocalyptic scenarios, try Hugh Howey…
Although I tend to agree that focus needs to more on long term solutions to long term climate issues, taking one aspect in isolation is misleading, and possibly simplifying a complex issue/s. We do not exist in a vacuum.
Nick feels Labor MPs are going to be relaxed at the next election. I beg to differ. They have completely abandoned the reasons they were elected which was to overturn the evil policies of the Morrison Government. I guess they can relax living on the MPs’ generous superannuation.
Exactly. No-one will be voting to kick Morrison out at the next election. He aint there. Surely his absence is noted by Labor MPs. And yet this seems not to be the case. Puzzling .. a one term majority government with nothing positive to show for it. An extraordinary lack of ambition.
I anticipate that in a few key seats, where Greens preferences currently get Labor candidates elected, the tables will be turned and they will be anything but relaxed. Willing to bet that Macnamara will go Green, for example.
I note the below comments are all made by men, presumably doing manly things (Robin Hood, Men in Tights-Mel Brooks)…
Thanks for this article. The Fed Labor government’s failure to tackle the climate emergency, the housing crisis, inequality, etc should come as no surprise to Labor voters as Labor didn’t propose real action on these matters in its election campaign. The PM and Bowen refer to the climate crisis as an economic opportunity for Australia. What an insult to those in Australia and around the world who are already suffering the consequences of the climate crisis, and those – the poorest in the poorest countries – who will suffer the most in future.
This Labor mob is doing exactly what they said they would before people voted them in. Now, shock horror, we claim they said something else. I believe everyone should read all Parties’ pre-election lists of things they want to do, and get themselves clear about what they are voting for. If you’re rusted on it means you are rusty. As climate change girds its loins this becomes extra important.
See you down the toilet, which is where we’re all going thanks to people who voted for it.
Shorten proposed many sensible policies and Morrison won that election. ALBO is deliberately taking it more slowly
Well, he’s in the driver’s seat now, and it’s either a U-turn or over the cliff we go. Me, I’m scared of heights.
This Intergenerational Report is about creating conditions for ALP to reverse policies on Stage 3 tax cuts and on climate (in)action in time for the next Federal election.
I do hope you’re right, but the evidence isn’t pointing to that outcome
The ALP is so timid. It is terrified of its own shadow. It’s not decisive—all this hoopla (political machinations) to do what is bleedingly obvious. Heaven help us if a real crisis emerges. The ALP will have another focus group, consider the smallest target it can offer, and then do nothing. Except, of course, do anything to avoid being wedged by the LNP, including spending 100s of billions of dollars on defence without seeking a mandate from the electorate. After this and Stage 3 tax cuts, there is no money left to spend on real issues.
Zero reason to “take it slowly” once they’re in Government.
You want we let Dutts and co loose on the general population at the next election?
See, sorry to point out the bleeding obvious, but “long term” generally indicates a longer period than the constitutionally mandated election cycle…
I do not have an eyeroll big enough.
It is unlikely Labor will have a majority Government after the next election.
However, it is even more unlikely the Coalition will.
Hopefully it will be Greens in balance of power so useful things actually get done.
Agree, and people with their famous Oz BS radar, are happy to be influenced by BS RW MSM messaging, i.e. being leveraged into bagging ALP on a narrow range of themes, while ignoring history inc. LNP’s sterling efforts in cooperation with fossil fueled think tanks to work on global warming and carbon emissions.
The past generation, this has also produced lazy bipartisan bigotry on refugees, migration etc. deflecting from any substantive climate action eg. carbon pricing, inc. some unions, senior Labor types, LNP, ON, MSM and a US linked faux environmental NGO promoting eugenics; too easy and too lazy…..
Any report which suggests that at 3 degrees+ of global warming there will be a predictable “serious but manageable” reduction in GDP is bonkers. There will be no GDP to measure.
Economists have grossly underestimated, and continue to underestimate, the impact of catastrophic climate change – most outrageously William Nordhaus, but also the economists who wrote the economic part of the IPCC reports, and the economists who wrote the climate part of this intergenerational report.
Anyone wanting to know more about this should look at the work of Steve Keen, heterodox (Aussie) economist, starting with his paper, “The appallingly bad neoclassical economics of climate change”
One thing that none of the “economic models” incorporate is the effects of tipping points……………
……mostly because there is absolutely no way to predict them.
It will only become apparent in hindsight.
For my money, we will absolutely have passed a tipping point by the times we reach 3%…………….
…………and the effects will be sudden and catastrophic.
Don’t you mean 3 degrees?
Yes………
……..my eyesight is not what it used to be.
I don’t like The Greens. I consider them to have some good politicians, but most of them to be the same argumentative, high-minded, quibbling rabble that I dealt with at Uni, and who p*ssed me off mightily. But I’m going to vote for them. I don’t care what they do to the economy, I don’t care how they deal with overseas threats. The thought of ticking the box for Liberal or Labor makes my stomach curdle.
I take your point, but would it not be more ethical in such circumstances, to abstain from voting?
Possibly, but the higher the primary vote against the major parties, the better. BTW, I don’t get where FD’s hate for the Greens is coming from.
10+ years of “the perfect is the enemy of the good” propaganda I’d wager.
Oh dear, trotting out that nonsense again? Try, “making the barely adequate the enemy of the worse than useless” and you’ll be closer to the mark.
How is not voting ever ethical? Ethics is the moral responsibility to do everything for the common good, and not for your own self interest.
If you think it’s ethical for a person to vote for a political party that they ‘don’t like’ and who doesn’t ‘care what that party does to the economy’, nor how that party deals with ‘overseas threats’, just because it’s the only alternative to the duopoly, then your understanding of ethics needs a little work….
Agree.
As appalling as the ‘choice’ is it is incumbent on anyone possessing functioning synapses to vote, even when it’sfor the evilof two (often more) lessers.
Look at the UK, Canada & USofAholes to see what FPtP & low turnout yields.
There’ll be some lawyers in a bit of strife if that was the case, lol…. Maybe they could take on a few more pro bono publico cases to assuage their guilt? Or 3 Hail Mary’s? It’s nice to have choices…
Quibbling is bad. No one likes a quibbler. Argumentative and high mindedness? Not so high on the list of undesirable attributes.
Rabbles are neutral until the purpose of their rabble becomes clear
Until then, highly skilled and overpayed ‘rabble soothers’ make a rich living from putting a stick in the spokes of discourse.
If only we had more high-minded pollies! Less noses in the trough!
Who doesn’t enjoy the sound of rainbow lorikeets quibbling and chattering when their minds are high on fermented nectar? I only wish I could join in..!
Or the possums…. (Dame Edna, see what I did there? segues…
Close bracket)
There is the problem, in a nut(sic!) shell, for soi-disant progressives, aka grundle’s uberlauded “knowledge class” – unable to find its backside with a map..sorry google app..and both hands.
I actually wrote that line nearly forty years ago………………
The full quote is “Couldn’t find his arse in the dark without a map”
It caught on pretty quickly………………
………….I was in the UK on business about six months later and was surprised to hear it on a TV show.
Good to know it is still in circulation.