The general response to the safeguard mechanism negotiated between Labor and the Greens is it’s far from perfect climate policy — but it’s a start. Not great, but nothing could be worse than what we’ve had.
Samantha McCulloch, chief executive of the Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association (APPEA), has a different view, and took to the pages of The Australian to share it.
“Australia’s gas industry shares the nation’s commitment to net zero and understands our growing responsibilities as part of a cleaner energy future,” she opens. “The safeguard mechanism reforms, aimed at achieving net zero, could actually push national and international climate targets further away and make the cost to get there even greater.”
As Crikey Worm points out this morning, arguing the policy will keep us hooked on “dirtier fossil fuels” for longer relies on the erroneous view that gas is not a fossil fuel.
On top of that is the not-at-all-depressing sight of Labor’s Climate and Energy Minister Chris Bowen promising there’s nothing in the policy to stop new coal and gas projects and also that they’ll change the new rules if they need to.
Still, McCulloch’s take — full-throated support for climate change action except for what’s proposed — rang a few bells. We took a look back over the past decade and a half or so of climate change policy to see how the rhetoric has (or hasn’t) developed.
2007
In June 2007, with the Rudd government pursuing the “greatest moral challenge of our age”, the Business Council of Australia said it supported efforts to “link sensible and credible emissions reduction targets to a long-term, well-designed national emissions trading scheme”.
But… it also opposed the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol — a commitment of industrialised countries to limit and reduce greenhouse gases — and claimed the Rudd government’s carbon pollution reduction scheme (CPRS) would “exacerbate the impact of the economic downturn or unduly slow the recovery in economic growth”.
It also attacked Rudd’s emissions reduction targets and demanded special protections for coalmining. It also wanted the scheme delayed.
2009
The Minerals Council of Australia released a report claiming “approximately 23,510 fewer people will be employed in the Australian minerals industry due to the imposition of the proposed [emissions trading scheme], a fall in employment of 11% compared to what otherwise would have occurred”. It did not, you’ll be shocked to hear, entirely stack up.
Meanwhile the Australian Food and Grocery Council tried to whip up a scare campaign over the impact of the CPRS on food prices.
2011
Following the change from Rudd to Julia Gillard and the introduction of a carbon pricing scheme, the song remained the same. Once again the BCA said it supported “a market-based mechanism” to reduce emissions, but the government’s scheme would apparently “significantly increase risks to Australia’s economic growth and competitiveness” and was “extremely disappointing“.
Indeed, once the scheme — the impact of which on the economy was below even the modest forecasts of Treasury — was repealed by the Abbott government (ushering in five years of rising emissions and continuing higher electricity prices), the BCA joined the Australian Industry Group and Minerals Council to “welcome today’s repeal of the carbon tax“.
2013
Under Abbott, the BCA continued to argue for the need for climate action, although when that government briefly toyed with a safeguard mechanism, it demanded that it “explicitly ensure that the safeguard mechanism does not impose a burden that disadvantages Australia’s emissions-intensive, trade-exposed or import-competing industries”.
2018-19
In 2018, Labor announced a commitment to a 45% emissions reduction target. The BCA met with Liberal Party MPs to say the target was “economy-wrecking” and that it would run against it.
In 2019, Australian Industry Group’s Innes Willox argued: “Moving to a 45% emissions reduction target for 2030 would be a tough ask for many industries … These targets should be pursued through policies that maintain our trade competitiveness.”
***
All this is worth remembering when we assess whether the industries that profit most from fossil fuels are really arguing in the best faith.
All this is worth remembering after the collapse, when we’re deciding who gets eaten first.
G. Rhinohide could feed a family for a month but be careful which bits are used.
The further up the food chain the higher the toxin burden.
Very few mammals eat other carnivores, apart from hyenas – apparently a separate creation, exiled from Planet Zog.
Oi, Munin. I did that joke three weeks ago! It was up in the Comments section for two hours and then it disappeared. This reply may also go without warning, but I’ll have a second try anyway. My suggestion is to consult Hannibal Lecter’s recipe rolodex (from the TV series, not the books) to see what parts may be safely consumed. There will obviously be a bit of fatty tissue, which might require boiling to remove, but the liver could make an excellent pâte. The brain and kidneys should be in reasonable health as Gina is apparently teetotal. Some marination of the flesh could be required to take away that bitter taste. Once again, I leave off with the aside that she has been feeding on us for decades; now it’s time we repaid the favor.
Oh yuk! You guys are turning me vegetarian.
The biggest NIMBY-ists aren’t well-to=do residents in choice suburbs with views… it’s the wealthy profiteers of the dig it up, sell it off and burn it up lobby. The most egregious suckers of the government welfare teat.
“We admit that we need to make radical changes if we are to combat climate change,” says the fossil fuel industry “only… without affecting the status quo”.
And of course Chris Bowen, from the Alternative Liberal Party, is there to reassure them. “Don’t worry. It’s only legislation. Before the ink is dry, we’ll be drafting regulations to keep you in the profits you’re accustomed to.”
the fossil fuel industry are like the gun industry – both profiting from death and destruction – both lying and buying votes from politicians – and both always saying it’s too soon to change things
Of course, there’s always, “thoughts and prayers” to fall back on. That fixes everything.
And we have the edifying spectacle of massive gas exports of Australia’s sovereign resources while being told that there will be gas shortages here this winter! Time to nationalise Santos and ensure that our needs are met before any overseas markets. Burning gas is bad, but until we increase renewable electricity supplies, it beats the hell out of coal, too. (And how come the non-taxpaying gas companies have such a massive say in Australia? Must pay bigger bribes – to both major parties, which no doubt they write off their (unpaid) taxes.
Let’s not find ourselves saying that gas is better than nuclear. The waste from gas is far worse than the waste from nuclear. Gas and coal must both go. They must be replaced progressively at an average of 5% per annum (simple interest), starting immediately. At the same time, our governments must provide the nonfossil replacement, whether it is renewable or nuclear.
I agree we need everything in the mix that is not fossil, and were it up to me we’d have 50 reactors going right now. But Australia would rather have Armageddon than go nuclear. Pack mentality is a bit of a bummer.
Gas does not beat coal. If 3% of natural gas (methane) leaks then it equals coal’s emissions as a greenhouse gas. Normal leakage is up to 5%. The advantage of gas is that it can be started up or shut down quickly, as needed, compared to coal fired power. Coal has to be kept burning 24/7, hence the great furphy of back-up power. The things to examine most closely are the things you believe. Maybe the Emperor has no clothes?
We are subsidising the expansion of gas because there is insufficient renewable power? Where is the effing logic?
Our industries and jobs depend on oil, coal and gas. Unless it is agreed that we should burn all of it until it’s gone, then right now we should stop – and save ourselves. There’s plenty of gas to be fracked, poisoning the soil and water; there’s plenty of tar sands in Alberta, destroying their forests being mined; there’s even plenty of shale oil in Queensland, thankfully undisturbed so far. So why not burn all of it to keep ‘industry’ going? OR, why not have new industries producing renewable electricity? Fossil fuels are subsidised at a billion dollars every day, world-wide. Is it just me, or is there a problem here? Could we not stop that incredibly stupid crap, and subsidise renewables instead? Renewables create more jobs, not less. The fuel is free and right there on the spot. It’s from our nuclear fusion reactor in the sky! Which is free! Or we can keep on paying the bastards who are poisoning us, thanks to Albo and Co. It’s completely nuts!