Our political debate has been doused in petrol. But how is it, when peak oil talk is saturating the airwaves, that the subjects of renewable energy, infrastructure and climate change aren’t rating a mention? Instead we’re talking about 5 cent discounts, FuelWatch leaks and lopping off the GST.
“I’ve watched this debate with total despair…” Clive Hamilton, author of Scorcher and former executive director of The Australia Institute told Crikey. “This tells us that large increases in energy prices are off the political agenda for at least a decade. And so we’re stuffed. Because we have to act within a decade.”
Blame Brendan Nelson first. The opposition leader has finally managed to drag discussion to the petrol pump, and he’s inhaling deeply. Ferguson’s FuelWatch leak, plus Oakes’ latest revelation, meant the government finally fell over.
The Rudd government must “…shift public perceptions so that they don’t revolt over higher petrol prices and energy prices and engage the opposition so that it doesn’t descend into a petrol price war,” says Hamilton.
Instead, “the opposition has pursued the petrol price issue in crudest possible terms and the government has capitulated… Now I fear the government will be so terrified of a petrol price backlash that they will erode the integrity of an emissions system.”
But aren’t politicians underestimating working families, given that they rate climate change as one of their top concerns? According to The Climate Institute’s April polling, climate change is still in the top five concerns for people. So why can’t we connect the dots of fuel prices, energy consumption and climate change in the public’s mind?
“I think it shows that the shift in public sentiment on climate change remains superficial,” says Hamilton. “Public sentiment is there to be led… Over the last two years an opportunity has been created to get the public to accept that prices must rise.”
But an acknowledgement of climate change doesn’t necessarily translate into the public preparing for pain at the hip pocket.
“Awareness is an abstract one at the moment, removed from what people have to do personally,” says Hamilton. “the second step, which is harder, is to drive behavioural change, stimulated by policy.”
This is where government steps in. In theory.
“We’re very disappointed in both sides of politics,” Erwin Jackson of The Climate Institute told Crikey. “In Bali we saw a level of maturity from both sides that this was a serious problem… And now we’re heading back into the dark ages of climate policy.”
“… short term politicking over fuel will create a public perception that politicians will buckle under these kinds of pressures … therefore the public won’t take steps such as buying fuel efficient vehicles,” says Jackson.
And there are solutions beyond tax cuts. “Australians don’t want to have to rely upon their car for everyday needs, Sydney’s overwhelmed train system is testament to that. However the lack of a world-class public transport system makes it virtually impossible not to,” says Greenpeace Climate and Energy campaigner Simon Roz.
“Funding for roads should be reallocated to include all transport, with half going towards public transport. This should support the installation of high quality, high-speed passenger rail links between the major centres,” says Roz. But none of the “available options that will be required to end our dependance on the car look to be developed anytime soon.”
In the meantime Rudd, too busy plugging leaks, has missed a political opportunity. “They could have outflanked the opposition. They could have said we’re not going to sacrifice the environment” but we are going to shift income assistance to low income families who are hurting, says Hamilton.
Instead, “this is the worst short term vision imaginable. In this process the Rudd government has undermined its claim to be looking to the future of Australia.”
Dear John, This is a war. We need to stop blaming short-sighted Local, State and Federal governments as the truth is that they all should have seen this coming. We need to ration. We need to think about where to spend our fuel. And we need to be wise.
The hardest thing for the ordinary Australian is that they are suffering from a centralisation of services and jobs whilst living in decentralised outer urban areas, badly serviced by public transport, and serviced by large shopping centres that aren’t within a walkable distance of their homes. The have been sold the notion of safety in a big 4WD car, when that just makes communities more dangerous to walk in, as well as consuming ridiculous amounts of fuel for relatively short trips.
The choices we have all made have made us vulnerable and now is the time to reconsider. I was talking to a group of concerned parents and friends last night. They have made choices around a car-based lifestyle. They live a long way from their children’s schools. Their jobs take them in another direction. The teachers at the school don’t live near it and public transport is difficult. So the choices really are to centralise you life within a walkable community, where all necessary services are within about 1km, or stop whingeing and blaming and catch the bus!
One simple measure that has been overlooked by this rhetoric-bound government. Take away the tarrif concessions on imported 4WD. A simple gesture that our Wayne overlooked in his budget. Up here on the Gold Coast I take a count of the number of 4WD I encounter on my morning walks-most of them shiny specimens that have never seen the bush. Five years ago they were of a ratio of 1/8 and now 1/7 so the message is not getting through to these consumers.
Amazingly the number of lady drivers is astounding and I thought that perhaps this was some form of pen*s envy.
Interesting point re urban design LiViN, so how to steer the political conversation towards redesigning our urban areas, and providing a shot in the arm for public transport infrastructure for these families? Not exactly a sexy soundbite for politicians who prefer to talk about 5 cent petrol discounts.. esp given that PT is a state responsibility… but pt usage is on the increase in a major way, so how do we direct the conversation that way?
This debate and the way it has unfolded confirms two important political realities. The first is that this government, as Tony Abbott predicted, is much like the Carr and Iemma NSW governments were. They cannot take any tough decisions and despite rhetoric to the contrary do not have the ‘Gohones’ ( as the Spanish say ) to look at the long term. It amazes me that Nelson ( full credit to him ) has been able to engage Rudd and Swan to the point where they are clearly rattled, yet only 6 months into the term of their new government. Howard would have never allowed that to happen. The other very obvious fact is that the Green movement and the renewable energy sector have absolutely nothing to offer by way of an antidote to the difficulties being experienced by the broader community. In fact, their response is basically to argue that the pain should be increased. The Greens, in the great tradition of Malthus and Erlich are positively dangerous with no solution grounded in reality.