tag:theconversation.com,2011:/au/topics/climate-politics-23294/articlesClimate politics – The Conversation2023-08-03T15:18:36Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2109172023-08-03T15:18:36Z2023-08-03T15:18:36ZRishi Sunak’s green backtracking contrasts strongly with previous prime ministers’ efforts<p>UK prime minister Rishi Sunak appears to be wavering on “<a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/theresa-mays-net-zero-smackdown/">net zero by 2050</a>” that Theresa May successfully passed through parliament with barely a cough of disapproval in 2019.</p>
<p>Sunak is now talking about more <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/jul/24/rishi-sunak-labour-housebuilding-michael-gove-uk-politics-live-latest-updates">“proportionate and pragmatic”</a> government climate policies, while also <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/hundreds-of-new-north-sea-oil-and-gas-licences-to-boost-british-energy-independence-and-grow-the-economy-31-july-2023">announcing plans</a> to issue at least 100 licenses for new oil and gas projects in the North Sea.</p>
<p>This shift comes at a time when British holidaymakers are <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/24/uk-tourists-rhodes-wildfires-luggage-hotels">fleeing wildfires</a> in Rhodes and Corfu, and so many <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66229065">climate records are tumbling</a> that it’s hard to keep up. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.cen.uk.com/">Conservative Environment Network</a>, an independent forum for conservatives who support net zero, and others <a href="https://act.greenpeace.org/page/131486/-/1">including Greenpeace</a>, are trying to stiffen his spine. But Sunak appears minded to appease those on the “right” who are opposed to anything green.</p>
<p>This stance might seem surprising. But taking a global and historical perspective provides some context to the situation.</p>
<h2>The UK story</h2>
<p>The UK’s modern environment movement can be dated back to 1969 when the then prime minister, Harold Wilson, gave the <a href="https://allouryesterdays.info/2022/09/28/september-29-1969-british-prime-minister-harold-wilson-blah-blah-second-industrial-revolution-blah-blah-pollution-blah-blah/">first ever speech</a> to a party congress that mentioned “the environment”. Visiting the US the following year, Wilson proposed a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1970/01/26/archives/wilson-begins-trip-to-washington.html">new special relationship</a> based on environmental protection. </p>
<p>Far from decrying this, Conservative opposition leader Edward Heath accused Wilson of being too slow. When Heath became prime minister in 1970, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jul/05/Whitehall.uk">he created</a> a huge Department of the Environment.</p>
<p>While “the environment” faded from the headlines thanks to the oil price spike of 1973, high inflation and other issues, neither the Tories nor Labour backtracked. In 1979, new prime minister Margaret Thatcher <a href="https://allouryesterdays.info/2023/06/28/june-29-1979-thatcher-uses-carbon-dioxide-build-up-to-shill-for-nuclear-power/">even mentioned the greenhouse effect</a> while in Tokyo for a G7 meeting. </p>
<p>However, Thatcher took an obstructive line on acid rain. This was something Sweden was especially exercised about, since <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/307087a0.pdf">sulphur from British coal stations</a> was altering its lakes and rivers.</p>
<p>It was only in 1988, after persistent lobbying from scientists and diplomats that the lady was for turning. Her <a href="https://allouryesterdays.info/2022/09/26/september-27-1988-margaret-thatcher-comes-out-as-a-lentil-eating-greenie/">speech to the Royal Society</a> (a fellowship of eminent scientists) about the “experiment” humanity was conducting in tipping so much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/444002a">regarded as the starting point</a> for modern climate politics. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Margaret Thatcher making a speech." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/540982/original/file-20230803-21-4mxua0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/540982/original/file-20230803-21-4mxua0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=458&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540982/original/file-20230803-21-4mxua0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=458&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540982/original/file-20230803-21-4mxua0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=458&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540982/original/file-20230803-21-4mxua0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=576&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540982/original/file-20230803-21-4mxua0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=576&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540982/original/file-20230803-21-4mxua0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=576&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Thatcher’s speech to the Royal Society in 1988 is regarded as the starting point for modern climate politics.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/london-july-1-hon-margaret-thatcher-31562749">David Fowler/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Thanks to switching from coal to gas in the 1990s, and moving industry offshore, the UK could for a long-time boast of reducing its emissions and <a href="https://allouryesterdays.info/2022/01/25/january-25-1994-uk-government-releases-sustainable-development-strategy/">speak nobly of sustainable development</a>. In 1997, Tony Blair said the UK <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/articles/tony-blair-and-global-warming/">would go further</a> in cutting emissions than whatever target was set at the <a href="https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/marking-kyoto-protocol%E2%80%99s-25th-anniversary">UN conference in Kyoto</a>, the first agreement by rich nations to cut greenhouse gases. This was met with few grumbles from the Tories.</p>
<p>In the late 2000s there was a fierce <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/padm.12046">“competitive consensus”</a> (where politicians try to outbid the their competitor’s bid for votes and virtue) around passing a Climate Change Act. The then new Conservative leader, David Cameron, had <a href="https://allouryesterdays.info/2022/04/20/april-20-2006-david-cameron-does-hug-a-husky-to-detoxify-the-conservative-brand/">taken a trip to the Arctic</a> and was now saying “can we have the bill please”. </p>
<p>Very few Conservative MPs voted against the <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/27/contents">2008 Climate Change Act</a>, which set an 80% reduction in emissions by 2050 and placed restrictions on the amount of greenhouse gases the UK could emit over five-year periods.</p>
<p>Once in power, Cameron <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/bp.2015.16">supported fracking, opposed onshore wind</a>, and scrapped climate policies in a <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-cutting-the-green-crap-has-added-2-5bn-to-uk-energy-bills/">self-defeating effort</a> to reduce costs (<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/21/david-cameron-green-crap-comments-storm">allegedly ordering aides</a> to “get rid of all the green crap”). But he did not, at least <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378016300863">not directly</a>, attack the Climate Change Act.</p>
<p>After the <a href="https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement">Paris agreement in 2015</a>, which the UK signed, it became clear that 80% would not be enough of a target to have the UK meet its obligations to do its part to keep global warming under 2°C. And pressure built for a net zero emissions by 2050 target. This was one of Theresa May’s final acts, and was enthusiastically endorsed by all parties.</p>
<h2>So what’s gone wrong?</h2>
<p>Politicians tend to like targets that are distant, round numbers like 2050. They get the glow, without the pain of upsetting either vested interests or demanding that ordinary people change their behaviour. What we are seeing now, I believe, is a collision between what the promises were and what the immediate action has to be. </p>
<p>This is not unique to the UK. There have been periods, albeit brief, of bipartisan consensus around environmental issues in both <a href="https://allouryesterdays.info/2022/06/03/june-3-1989-liberal-party-to-outflank-labor-on-climate/">Australia</a> and the <a href="https://time.com/4874888/climate-change-politics-history/">US</a>. </p>
<p>But once in power, Conservative governments have tended to prioritise “free markets” over what they label as irksome or socialistic environmental regulation. The main motor of climate denial, and framing green concerns as like a “watermelon” (green on the outside, red on the inside) has historically been the United States.</p>
<p>One way of looking at what is happening in the UK Conservative Party now is that the same imported “culture war” tropes that gave the UK an unevidenced <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65272595">“voter registration” panic</a> in May 2023, is now turning to climate policy. This phenomenon is what was behind the <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/rishi-sunak-right-wing-think-tank-anti-protest-laws-policy-exchange/">recent Just Stop Oil action</a> at Policy Exchange, a right-wing think tank that helped draft controversial new laws cracking down on climate protesters.</p>
<p>The recent <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-green-policy-uxbridge-by-elections-b2380382.html">Uxbridge by-election result</a>, where the Conservatives’ narrow victory was driven by anger against London’s ultra-low emissions zone (an area where drivers of the highest-polluting vehicles must pay a fee), is likely to have whetted the appetite of right-wing Tory strategists. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/britains-next-election-could-be-a-climate-change-culture-war-210351">Britain's next election could be a climate change culture war</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>They may see this as a way of dividing Labour and either winning the next election by weaponising climate policy, or at the very least, reducing their losses to “manageable proportions”. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, the emissions climb, the ice melts and the waters warm. And everyone will be holding their breath for every food harvest from here onwards.</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="Imagine weekly climate newsletter" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong><em>Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?</em></strong>
<br><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/newsletters/imagine-57?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=Imagine&utm_content=DontHaveTimeTop">Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead.</a> Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/newsletters/imagine-57?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=Imagine&utm_content=DontHaveTimeBottom">Join the 20,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.</a></em></p>
<hr><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/210917/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Until January 2023, Marc Hudson was a research fellow on a project investigating the politics of industrial decarbonisation, funded by the Industrial Decarbonisation Research and Innovation Centre</span></em></p>Past prime ministers could afford to talk big on climate change – but now the impact of the environmental crisis is manifestly real, Sunak can’t afford to appease those who oppose green policies.Marc Hudson, Visiting Fellow, SPRU, University of Sussex Business School, University of SussexLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1978662023-01-18T13:39:49Z2023-01-18T13:39:49ZWhy gas stoves matter to the climate – and the gas industry: Keeping them means homes will use gas for heating too<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/505000/original/file-20230117-14-6rhwh5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C5066%2C3433&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Industry wants to keep people cooking with gas.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/new-jersey-jersey-city-close-up-of-gas-stove-burner-royalty-free-image/150973307">Jamie Grill, Tetra Images via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Gas stoves are a leading source of hazardous indoor <a href="https://theconversation.com/are-gas-stoves-bad-for-your-health-heres-why-the-federal-government-is-considering-new-safety-regulations-186454">air pollution</a>, but they emit only a tiny share of the greenhouse gases that warm the climate. Why, then, have they assumed such a heated role in climate politics? </p>
<p>This debate reignited on Jan. 9, 2023, when Richard Trumka Jr., a member of the <a href="https://www.cpsc.gov/">U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission</a>, told <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-09/us-safety-agency-to-consider-ban-on-gas-stoves-amid-health-fears">Bloomberg News</a> that the agency planned to consider regulating gas stoves due to concerns about their health effects. “Products that can’t be made safe can be banned,” he noted.</p>
<p>Politicians reacted with overheated <a href="https://time.com/6247293/gas-stoves-right-wing-memes/">outrage</a>, putting gas stove ownership on a par with <a href="https://twitter.com/RonnyJacksonTX/status/1612839703018934274?s=20&t=ptxUxaAhqE1ax8FwY15cyA">the right to bear arms</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/Jim_Jordan/status/1613617882004443138">religious freedom</a>. CPSC Chair Alexander Hoehn-Saric tried to douse the uproar, stating that he was “<a href="https://www.cpsc.gov/About-CPSC/Chairman/Alexander-Hoehn-Saric/Statement/Statement-of-Chair-Alexander-Hoehn-Saric-Regarding-Gas-Stoves">not looking to ban gas stoves</a>” and that his agency “has no proceeding to do so.” Neither does the Biden administration support a ban, a <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2023/01/11/press-briefing-by-press-secretary-karine-jean-pierre-january-11-2023/">White House spokesperson said</a>.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, congressional Republicans raced to the barricades, introducing bills with titles like the <a href="https://issa.house.gov/media/press-releases/issa-introduces-gas-act-prevent-biden-administration-ban-gas-stoves">Guard America’s Stoves (GAS) Act</a> and the <a href="https://huizenga.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=401521">Stop Trying to Obsessively Vilify Energy (STOVE) Act</a>.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1613556347488079872"}"></div></p>
<p>This skirmish may seem like a tempest in a teapot, but it reveals important contours of the battlefield on which climate politics are waged. As I explain in my book, “<a href="https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300251678/confronting-climate-gridlock/">Confronting Climate Gridlock: How Diplomacy, Technology, and Policy Can Unlock a Clean Energy Future</a>,” gas stoves matter to climate and to the gas industry because they serve as <a href="https://www.npr.org/2021/10/07/1015460605/gas-stove-emissions-climate-change-health-effects">gateway appliances</a> to the dominant residential uses of natural gas: heating and hot water. </p>
<h2>Serious health effects</h2>
<p>Direct impacts from gas stoves are a much more urgent concern for <a href="https://theconversation.com/are-gas-stoves-bad-for-your-health-heres-why-the-federal-government-is-considering-new-safety-regulations-186454">human health</a> than for Earth’s climate. Gas stoves are a leading indoor source of <a href="https://theconversation.com/are-gas-stoves-bad-for-your-health-heres-why-the-federal-government-is-considering-new-safety-regulations-186454">nitrogen dioxide</a>, or NO₂, which can cause or worsen respiratory illnesses in people who are exposed to it.</p>
<p>For example, scientific studies show that living in a home with a gas stove increases children’s risk of asthma by <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyt150">nearly one-third</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201909-1744OC">contributes to pulmonary disease in adults</a>.</p>
<p>The climate doesn’t care what fuel we use to cook. Gas stoves account for just 0.1% of <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks">U.S. greenhouse gas emissions</a>, even accounting for recent findings of larger than expected <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c04707">household methane leaks</a>. They aren’t a big share of fuel sales either, burning just <a href="https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2015/index.php?view=consumption#undefined">3% of the natural gas consumed in homes</a>.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_6cXiqrIueo?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Some experts say health risks from gas stoves could be comparable to living with a smoker.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Impeding home electrification</h2>
<p>The significance of gas stoves for the climate becomes clearer in the context of the Biden administration’s goal of <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/US-Long-Term-Strategy.pdf">achieving net-zero U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2050</a>. This target can only be achieved by curbing fossil fuel use across the economy, including in homes. </p>
<p>Installing more-efficient <a href="https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/furnaces-and-boilers">furnaces</a>, better insulation and <a href="https://www.energystar.gov/products/smart_thermostats">smart thermostats</a> are helpful first steps, but getting close to zero will require switching to electricity for space heating and water heating. In the U.S., 46% of homes use natural gas as their <a href="https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2020/index.php?view=characteristics#sh">main source of heat</a>, 40% use electricity, 10% use other fuels such as heating oil or propane, and 4% are unheated. For water heating, the percentages are 47% gas, 47% electricity and 6% other fuels.</p>
<p>Today, electric and gas heating <a href="https://wcec.ucdavis.edu/wp-content/uploads/GHG-Emissions-from-Residential-Heating-Technologies-091520.pdf">have similar carbon footprints</a>, since roughly <a href="https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/">60%</a> of U.S. electricity is generated from fossil fuels and many homes use inefficient electric resistance heaters. But the emissions intensity of electricity is rapidly <a href="https://emissionsindex.org">declining</a> as <a href="https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=54559">coal plants close</a> and <a href="https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=50818">solar and wind power expands</a>. </p>
<p>President Joe Biden has set a goal of 100% clean electricity nationally by <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/04/22/fact-sheet-president-biden-sets-2030-greenhouse-gas-pollution-reduction-target-aimed-at-creating-good-paying-union-jobs-and-securing-u-s-leadership-on-clean-energy-technologies/">2035</a>. Although current federal policies fall short of that target, a growing number of <a href="https://www.cesa.org/projects/100-clean-energy-collaborative/guide/table-of-100-clean-energy-states/">states</a> have committed to 100% clean electricity by 2050 or sooner.</p>
<p><iframe id="mh2AF" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/mh2AF/3/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Natural gas is far harder to decarbonize than electricity. Lower-carbon fuels such as <a href="https://www.iea.org/reports/outlook-for-biogas-and-biomethane-prospects-for-organic-growth/the-outlook-for-biogas-and-biomethane-to-2040">biogas</a> and <a href="https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/hydrogen/experts-say-blending-hydrogen-into-gas-pipelines-wont-work">hydrogen</a> that could be blended in with natural gas are likely to remain scarce and <a href="https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/cost-curve-of-potential-global-biogas-supply-by-feedstock-2040">costly</a>.</p>
<p>Furthermore, advanced technologies enable electric <a href="https://theconversation.com/electric-heat-pumps-use-much-less-energy-than-furnaces-and-can-cool-houses-too-heres-how-they-work-154779">heat pumps</a> to heat both air and water far more efficiently than traditional electric or gas furnaces and water heaters. That’s why <a href="https://irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com/be6d1d56/files/uploaded/zero-carbon-action-plan.pdf">various</a> <a href="https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/?explorer=year&state=national&table=2020&limit=200">scenarios</a> for <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2020AV000284">decarbonizing</a> <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/US-Long-Term-Strategy.pdf">energy</a> all envision a major shift to electric heat pumps. This transition is <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/02/world/europe/germany-heat-pumps.html">well underway in Europe</a> and <a href="https://www.theverge.com/23301515/heat-pump-faq-guide-heating-cooling">starting in the U.S.</a></p>
<p>Replacing existing gas furnaces and water heaters with electric heat pumps can be costly and complicated, though <a href="https://theconversation.com/big-new-incentives-for-clean-energy-arent-enough-the-inflation-reduction-act-was-just-the-first-step-now-the-hard-work-begins-188693">incentives</a> from the Inflation Reduction Act can help. But if <a href="https://rmi.org/all-electric-new-homes-a-win-for-the-climate-and-the-economy/">new homes</a> are built fully electric from the start, they avoid the cost of installing natural gas hookups, and emit far less air pollution and fewer greenhouse gases throughout the homes’ lifetime. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/505027/original/file-20230117-14-byvv2.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Graphic showing house with features including solar power, heat pumps and high-quality insulation." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/505027/original/file-20230117-14-byvv2.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/505027/original/file-20230117-14-byvv2.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=255&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505027/original/file-20230117-14-byvv2.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=255&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505027/original/file-20230117-14-byvv2.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=255&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505027/original/file-20230117-14-byvv2.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=320&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505027/original/file-20230117-14-byvv2.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=320&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505027/original/file-20230117-14-byvv2.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=320&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">This schematic shows key components of a net-zero house that generates as much electricity as it consumes, using renewable energy.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.efficiencyvermont.com/blog/how-to/how-to-make-your-home-net-zero">Efficiency Vermont</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>New York City and more than 50 California towns, cities and counties have already <a href="https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/states-that-outlaw-gas-bans-account-for-31-of-us-residential-commercial-gas-use-70749584">banned gas hookups in new buildings</a>. Elsewhere, 20 states have <a href="https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/states-that-outlaw-gas-bans-account-for-31-of-us-residential-commercial-gas-use-70749584">barred the enactment of natural gas bans</a>. </p>
<p>Gas stoves are a big reason why.</p>
<h2>The power of a slogan</h2>
<p>“Most people don’t care how their water is heated or how their heater works, but the Viking stove in the kitchen, people have this visceral emotional attachment,” Michael Colvin of the <a href="https://www.edf.org/">Environmental Defense Fund</a> told me in an interview for my book, “<a href="https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300251678/confronting-climate-gridlock/">Confronting Climate Gridlock</a>.”</p>
<p>That emotional attachment makes stoves a flashpoint in battles over climate policy.</p>
<p>“Cooking is the hill that the gas industry wants to fight on,” Bruce Nilles of <a href="https://climateimperative.org/">Climate Imperative</a> told me in a 2020 <a href="https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300251678/confronting-climate-gridlock/">interview</a> that foreshadowed the current skirmish. “They’ll say, ‘Do you want the government to take away your gas stove that makes you a great chef?’”</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.aga.org/">American Gas Association</a> has promoted the notion that gas stoves make skilled cooks since the 1930s, when it introduced the advertising slogan “<a href="https://www.waltongas.com/how-deke-and-bob-started-cooking-with-gas/">Now you’re cooking with gas</a>.” An AGA executive <a href="https://www.wytv.com/news/daybreak/nugget-of-knowledge-cooking-with-gas/">planted the phrase</a> with writers for comedian Bob Hope. Soon it was picked up by <a href="https://www.wytv.com/news/daybreak/nugget-of-knowledge-cooking-with-gas/">comedian Jack Benny, and even by Daffy Duck</a>. The phrase has also <a href="https://www.npr.org/2021/10/07/1015460605/gas-stove-emissions-climate-change-health-effects">appeared over time</a> in social media endorsements and hashtags.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/FJRQo5aawho?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">‘Cookin’ with Gas,‘ a 1988 commercial produced by National Fuel Gas.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Gas burners do provide more control than many stoves with electric coils, especially older models, which can be slow to heat up and cool down. Today, however, many <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/11/dining/induction-cooking.html">chefs</a>, <a href="https://www.seattletimes.com/pacific-nw-magazine/how-a-shiny-new-induction-cooktop-melted-her-heart-and-why-gas-is-so-passe/">consumers</a> and experts say gas is no longer the obvious choice. <a href="https://theconversation.com/magnetic-induction-cooking-can-cut-your-kitchens-carbon-footprint-151422">Magnetic induction cooktops</a>, which cook using electricity to generate a magnetic field, heat faster, control temperatures more precisely and use less energy than other stoves.</p>
<p>“There’s this big misconception that electric ranges don’t cook as well as gas,” Shanika Whitehurst, a member of Consumer Reports’ research and testing team, <a href="https://www.consumerreports.org/appliances/inflation-reduction-act-and-new-electric-appliance-rebates-a3460144904/">said in a recent article</a>. “But the technology has improved to the point where electric and especially induction ranges and cooktops cook every bit as well, if not better than gas.” Consumer Reports ranks induction and some traditional electric stoves among its <a href="https://www.consumerreports.org/ranges/best-ranges-of-the-year-a1010644947/">top-rated models</a>. </p>
<p>Homes built today will endure far beyond Biden’s 2050 net-zero target. And the longer the gas-is-better myth persists, the harder it will be to fully electrify new homes from the start. As I see it, if “cooking with gas” keeps us tethering new homes to natural gas grids for decades to come, our health, climate and wallets will pay the price.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/197866/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Daniel Cohan receives funding from Project Innerspace, the Carbon Hub, and the Energy Foundation. </span></em></p>Energy companies have marketed natural gas as cooks’ favorite for years because homes with gas hookups will also use it for space and water heating.Daniel Cohan, Associate Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Rice UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1895552022-09-05T20:04:28Z2022-09-05T20:04:28ZTaxes out, subsidies in: Australia and the US are passing major climate bills – without taxing carbon<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/482677/original/file-20220905-24-7ck41d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=8%2C4%2C2986%2C1967&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>At last, there’s action on climate change. The United States <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-us-has-finally-passed-a-huge-climate-bill-australia-needs-to-keep-up-188525">recently passed</a> its largest climate bill ever. And Australia is <a href="https://theconversation.com/government-set-to-legislate-its-43-emissions-reduction-target-after-greens-announce-support-188153">set to usher</a> a 43% emissions target into law this week, although the Greens will try to <a href="https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/the-greens-to-introduce-climate-trigger-bill-to-parliament-in-a-bid-to-further-cut-greenhouse-emissions/news-story/507a14a3228268ab661a3c032ec22eb8">amend</a> the bill so the climate impacts of new gas and coal projects are considered. </p>
<p>Good news, right? There’s one issue – these laws, packages and amendments conspicuously avoid the “T” word. Economists have long argued the best option to cut emissions is a tax or, failing that, a type of carbon market known as “<a href="https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/explainers/how-do-emissions-trading-systems-work/">cap-and-trade</a>”. But nowhere do the Australian or US bills mention taxing carbon dioxide to discourage dumping it into the atmosphere. </p>
<p>Why? The answer is basically politics. The Gillard Labor government introduced a carbon tax that, although it worked, turned out to be political kryptonite. So Labor’s climate policies now rely not on a tax, but on incentives for clean energy, carbon farming and electric transport.</p>
<p>This is not ideal. For decades, economists have pointed out carbon taxes and pollution allowance markets are the <a href="https://theconversation.com/carbon-pricing-works-the-largest-ever-study-puts-it-beyond-doubt-142034">simplest and best way</a> to reduce emissions at the lowest possible cost. But it seems taxes are out and stimulus is in. </p>
<h2>A long history of tax avoidance</h2>
<p>This isn’t new, of course. For decades, politicians – particularly in Anglophone countries – have avoided carbon taxes or market-based ways of cutting planet-heating pollutants. </p>
<p>Every attempt to price carbon on a national level in the US <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/15/will-us-ever-put-a-price-on-carbon-as-part-of-climate-change-policy.html">has failed</a>. The first was in 1990. Presidential candidate turned climate campaigner Al Gore <a href="https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/gores-carbon-tax-shift-beats-cap-and-trade">called for a carbon tax</a> in his influential 1992 book, Earth in the Balance. But it was <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2009/09/gores-carbon-tax-makes-good-sense-027451">politically unappealing</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-us-has-finally-passed-a-huge-climate-bill-australia-needs-to-keep-up-188525">The US has finally passed a huge climate bill. Australia needs to keep up</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Why? Concerns over “federal overreach”, increasing cost of power, and, of course, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2011.05.002">lobbying</a> from fossil fuel industries.</p>
<p>Australia has the sad title of the first country in the world to introduce and remove a price on carbon – a sign of <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-10/carbon-tax-timeline/5569118">how fraught the idea</a> has been. Labor’s Rudd-Gillard government lost the 2013 election with the “carbon tax” issue front-and-centre <a href="https://theconversation.com/obituary-australias-carbon-price-29217">in the campaign</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/482680/original/file-20220905-20-egagse.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="electric car" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/482680/original/file-20220905-20-egagse.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/482680/original/file-20220905-20-egagse.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/482680/original/file-20220905-20-egagse.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/482680/original/file-20220905-20-egagse.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/482680/original/file-20220905-20-egagse.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/482680/original/file-20220905-20-egagse.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/482680/original/file-20220905-20-egagse.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Subsidies for electric vehicles and green energy are set to grow strongly.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Policy and politics has evolved</h2>
<p>Since Australia repealed its carbon tax, we’ve seen significant change in climate policies towards what is politically possible. </p>
<p>In the US, federal inaction on climate change spawned stronger environmental regulation by some states. Coalitions of American states now operate some of the world’s best pollution markets, such as that covering <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2022.102620">12 eastern states</a> and California’s <a href="https://www.c2es.org/content/california-cap-and-trade/">own market</a>.</p>
<p>The EU avoided taxes in favour of a cannier approach. They created a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-009-9275-7">pollution market</a> but allowed each state to determine how many allowances domestic firms could obtain. This made the policy more politically appetising and the EU carbon market has since <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/climate-change-carbonpricing-europe-idUKL8N2I61AY">expanded substantially</a>. </p>
<p>The world’s largest emitter, China, last year followed suit and launched the <a href="https://chinadialogue.net/en/climate/the-first-year-of-chinas-national-carbon-market-reviewed/">world’s largest</a> carbon trading scheme. </p>
<p>But Australia didn’t follow the emissions trading model pursued by the EU and many US states. Instead, the Abbott Coalition government brought in an <a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-emissions-reduction-fund-is-almost-empty-it-shouldnt-be-refilled-92283">emissions reduction fund</a> to subsidise pollution reduction. </p>
<p>Companies can use pollution reduction to gain carbon credits, which can be sold to government or on the private market. The policy has proven thoroughly <a href="https://theconversation.com/we-blew-the-whistle-on-australias-central-climate-policy-heres-what-a-new-federal-government-probe-must-fix-185894">underwhelming</a>. </p>
<h2>What trends are we seeing?</h2>
<p>So tax and markets seem to be off the table when it comes to climate bills. </p>
<p>Last month, the US passed a sweeping <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-us-has-finally-passed-a-huge-climate-bill-australia-needs-to-keep-up-188525">A$530 billion bill</a> aimed at boosting health care funding and tackling climate change.</p>
<p>It’s aimed at speeding up the shift to clean energy and electric transport, through rebates and tax credits for electric cars, efficient appliances and rooftop solar. Conspicuously absent was any mention of a carbon tax or pollution allowance market. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1558864379176697861"}"></div></p>
<p>Australia’s climate bill requires us to reduce emissions by 43% by 2030 – but there’s very little information on the crucial question of how. </p>
<p>Labor’s bill <a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-may-be-heading-for-emissions-trading-between-big-polluters-188799">envisages</a> a type of market, regulating large polluters by allowing them to trade credits created by emissions reduction.</p>
<p>But both Australia and the US have shied away from the principle of “polluter pays”. </p>
<p>This is disappointing. Yes, subsiding pollution reduction can create incentives for behaviour change. But subsidies are <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/competing-solar-and-fast-rail-schemes-economically-wasteful-report-20181028-p50chy.html">often wasteful</a> and inefficient. Taxes and markets are better options. We now know countries with a price on carbon have emissions growth rates <a href="https://theconversation.com/carbon-pricing-works-the-largest-ever-study-puts-it-beyond-doubt-142034">around 2% lower</a> than those without. Longer term, this is often enough to see overall emissions begin to fall.</p>
<p>While the direct costs of subsidies are not immediately seen by citizens and companies, these subsidies have to be paid for through increases in general taxation. Carbon taxes, by contrast, are more explicit. A polluter will clearly notice having to pay the tax and be motivated to avoid it. </p>
<h2>We’ll still need taxes and market approaches, even with the subsidies</h2>
<p>Instead of splashing out on subsidies, governments could still <a href="https://theconversation.com/economists-back-carbon-price-say-benefits-of-net-zero-outweigh-costs-169939">introduce a carbon tax</a> to raise much-needed revenue while offering assistance to low-income households, cutting taxes elsewhere, or even reduce the deficit. </p>
<p>In Australia, there’s surprising support for a <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/technology/majority-want-carbon-tax-back/news-story/de67bf2831809123d2e227788704ecb0">return of the carbon tax</a>. But Labor may well be wary, given how their last carbon tax was easily defeated with a political scare campaign. One alternative could be to follow the EU and China and begin <a href="https://doi.org/10.1086/717898">auctioning</a> off pollution permits. </p>
<p>We could also borrow from America’s approach. Deep in the bill is a <a href="https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2022/08/11/climate-bills-methane-fee-could-pave-the-way-to-a-carbon-tax-00050941">fee on methane emissions</a>. This, some environmentalists believe, could be the crucial first step towards wider pricing of pollution. </p>
<p>Even though subsidies and rebates are politically popular, by themselves they cannot end greenhouse gas emissions. While carrots are popular, we will still need a stick – taxes or markets – to actually encourage polluters to cut emissions. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/carbon-pricing-works-the-largest-ever-study-puts-it-beyond-doubt-142034">Carbon pricing works: the largest-ever study puts it beyond doubt</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/189555/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ian A. MacKenzie does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Climate bills in Australia and the US promise progress without carbon taxes or markets. Here’s why.Ian A. MacKenzie, Associate Professor in Economics, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1885252022-08-10T20:12:26Z2022-08-10T20:12:26ZThe US has finally passed a huge climate bill. Australia needs to keep up<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/478456/original/file-20220810-12-d4e2i5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=111%2C42%2C907%2C639&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Getty</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>If politics moves slowly, climate politics often feels like it doesn’t move at all. </p>
<p>Yet at the weekend, US senators worked through the night to accomplish something they have failed to do since NASA scientist James Hansen first <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/24/us/global-warming-has-begun-expert-tells-senate.html">warned them</a> about the dangers of climate change almost 35 years ago. They passed a <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-senate-democrats-fend-off-amendments-430-bln-climate-drug-bill-2022-08-07/">major climate bill</a>. </p>
<p>And not just any bill. The A$530 billion of clean energy initiatives in the larger Inflation Reduction Act represent the largest single investment to slow global heating in US history. It means the world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases will become a global leader on climate change. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.science.org/content/article/surprise-climate-bill-will-meet-ambitious-goal-40-cut-us-emissions-energy-models">Initial modelling</a> suggests the bill could be enough to cut US emissions by around 40% by 2030, relative to a 2005 baseline. That won’t meet President Joe Biden’s goal of halving emissions by 2030, but it gives America a fighting chance. </p>
<p>What does it mean for Australia? After the go-slow years of Coalition government and Trump’s fossil-fuel-friendly presidency, the times finally favour action. There is a clean energy race on, and Australia needs to keep up.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1556456072524664832"}"></div></p>
<h2>It’s been a hard road</h2>
<p>When the bill passed, senators broke down in tears. Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer spoke of “a long, tough and winding road. But at last, at last we have arrived.”</p>
<p>The bill looked dead in the water as recently as July, when controversial Democratic senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/15/climate/manchin-climate-change-democrats.html">pulled his crucial vote</a> for climate legislation. </p>
<p>That led many to despair, believing the window for climate action had shut again given Republican disinterest in climate action. But then Manchin cut a deal. It was the last chance to act before November’s midterm elections, which Republicans are expected to win – although the Supreme Court’s seismic decision on abortion <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/f42d6a68-c7bf-48b6-bf1c-e024195910a8">may change</a> this. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/478452/original/file-20220810-14-ebld6h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/478452/original/file-20220810-14-ebld6h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/478452/original/file-20220810-14-ebld6h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=389&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/478452/original/file-20220810-14-ebld6h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=389&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/478452/original/file-20220810-14-ebld6h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=389&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/478452/original/file-20220810-14-ebld6h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=489&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/478452/original/file-20220810-14-ebld6h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=489&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/478452/original/file-20220810-14-ebld6h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=489&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Offshore wind could be a game-changer for clean energy in Australia.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Nicholas Doherty/Unsplash</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>I remember being in Washington DC, studying climate policy, the last time the US got this close. In the summer of 2009, the US House of Representatives passed a bill designed to institute a nationwide carbon price. With chants of “yes we can” still ringing in many ears after President Barack Obama’s arrival in the White House, it seemed climate politics was moving. But the Senate killed that bill, and with it any hope for legislative action on climate change. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/government-set-to-legislate-its-43-emissions-reduction-target-after-greens-announce-support-188153">Government set to legislate its 43% emissions reduction target after Greens announce support</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>America had to wait more than a decade for the next opportunity. The weekend’s vote was close, with Vice President Kamala Harris casting the decider. </p>
<p>What was lost in the intervening years was more than time. In the past decade, climate impacts have become more frequent and deadly. Just ask the flood victims of Lismore in New South Wales, or the citizens of Mallacoota in Victoria after the bushfires. </p>
<p>Most of Europe is <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2022/08/08/europe/eu-uk-drought-warnings-weather-climate-intl/index.html">now in drought</a>. Stories of unprecedented heatwaves and flooding come in weekly from China, India, the Middle East and South America. The western US is <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/western-megadrought-is-the-worst-in-1-200-years/">in megadrought</a>, the worst in at least 1,200 years, with reservoirs at dangerous lows. </p>
<h2>What does the bill actually contain?</h2>
<p>When climate action is deliberately stalled by political parties, the price is paid by communities, families and the natural world.</p>
<p>That’s why the US bill is momentous. Senate approval of the A$530 billion in spending will directly advance clean energy. This includes billions of dollars in tax credits for solar panels, wind turbines, batteries and geothermal plants, among other technologies.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/albanese-just-laid-out-a-radical-new-vision-for-australia-in-the-region-clean-energy-exporter-and-green-manufacturer-186815">Albanese just laid out a radical new vision for Australia in the region: clean energy exporter and green manufacturer</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>This comes through around A$13 billion in rebates for Americans to electrify their homes, tax credits of almost A$11,000 to electrify their cars, and billions more to establish a “green bank”, target agricultural emissions and help disadvantaged communities. </p>
<p>Even better, these billions in public money will crowd in private investment, accelerating the speed at which the US economy can decarbonise. </p>
<h2>What should Australia take from this?</h2>
<p>There are several lessons for Australia. </p>
<p>The first is legislating a target as Labor has done is a start, but only a start. The world is set for a clean energy race, given China is also investing <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-23/china-triples-solar-investments-as-clean-energy-push-accelerates">huge amounts</a> in clean energy while European nations are trying to wean themselves off Russian gas. </p>
<p>The Albanese government should follow the US with historic investments in clean energy, using renewable jobs as an incentive. Key features of the US bill aim to turbocharge local clean energy manufacturing, such as requiring battery components be made in the US. As it stands, America’s geopolitical rival China has cornered the market in many areas of clean tech, such as <a href="https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Energy/China-s-solar-panel-supply-chain-domination-cause-for-worry-IEA">solar panels</a>. </p>
<p>Second, fossil fuel industries will fight tooth and nail against change. Manchin has received <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/industries?cid=N00032838&cycle=2022">more money</a> from the oil and gas industry than any other member of Congress – and has <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2022/07/15/politics/joe-manchin-coal-financial-interests-climate/index.html">personal interests</a> in coal. His interventions mean the bill has rewards for the oil and gas industries, such as requiring the federal government to auction new offshore oil and gas leases. There is likely more devil in the detail.</p>
<p>For decades, fossil fuel industries have had an <a href="https://www.themonthly.com.au/blog/judith-brett/2020/01/2020/1593562904/coal-cursed#mtr">outsized influence</a> on climate policy in Australia. It’s folly to think they’ll just give up. This week we found out the car industry has already launched a <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/revealed-car-industry-s-secret-emissions-plan-would-slow-electric-vehicle-uptake-20220805-p5b7pe.html">secret PR campaign</a> to slow electric vehicle uptake. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/478453/original/file-20220810-20-v3dilp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="protest climate" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/478453/original/file-20220810-20-v3dilp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/478453/original/file-20220810-20-v3dilp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/478453/original/file-20220810-20-v3dilp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/478453/original/file-20220810-20-v3dilp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/478453/original/file-20220810-20-v3dilp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/478453/original/file-20220810-20-v3dilp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/478453/original/file-20220810-20-v3dilp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Protestors and people involved in climate movements have kept the pressure up during periods of political inaction.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Markus Spiske/Unsplash</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Against these entrenched interests stand the growing throngs of people involved in climate movements. This is what has kept climate politics moving. Countless Americans, from political activists to schoolkids, mobilised to pressure Congress to act. </p>
<p>The same has happened here. Arid and sparsely populated Australia is already being hit by intensifying natural disasters. As the May election result showed, people have had enough of political delays and inaction.</p>
<p>We must keep moving. Climate science does not stand still, and neither should the politics.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-greens-have-backed-labors-43-target-but-dont-think-australias-climate-wars-are-over-188156">The Greens have backed Labor's 43% target - but don't think Australia's climate wars are over </a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/188525/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Christian Downie receives funding from the Australian Research Council</span></em></p>Almost 35 years after the US Senate was first warned about climate change, it has passed a bill. Here’s what it means for Australia.Christian Downie, Associate Professor, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1847482022-06-20T03:47:33Z2022-06-20T03:47:33ZAustralia has a once in a lifetime opportunity to break the stranglehold fossil fuels have on our politics<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/469184/original/file-20220616-26-5vesli.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=65%2C13%2C4299%2C2877&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In the wake of the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/may/29/listen-engage-show-you-care-how-greens-and-independents-took-local-politics-all-the-way-to-canberra">Green and Teal wave</a> that crashed through the federal parliament, attention has inevitably turned to what the new crossbenchers will say and do about climate policy. </p>
<p>So far, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/may/27/the-guardian-view-on-australias-election-labor-needs-to-go-bigger-on-climate">attention</a> has <a href="https://www.sei.org/perspectives/exploring-australias-climate-election/">focused</a> on Australia’s 2030 emissions reduction target, and whether the Teals will pressure the new Labor government to increase its relatively <a href="https://climateanalytics.org/publications/2022/australian-election-2022-political-party-and-independent-climate-goals-analysis/">unambitious</a>) target, to which it has now <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-16/australia-updates-emissions-reduction-target-paris-agreement/101157008">formally committed</a>. </p>
<p>There’s a much more important question to ask. That is, how will any new target actually be reached? </p>
<p>The history of Australian climate policy — under both Labor and Coalition governments — shows very clearly that our large and powerful fossil fuel industry and its political clients are adept at devising “innovative” ways to ensure targets are achieved without obstructing the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/03/australia-considering-more-than-100-fossil-fuel-projects-that-could-produce-5-of-global-industrial-emissions">Lemming-like march</a> toward ever more coal and gas production. </p>
<p>Cynical? Hardly. We’ve met previous targets not by shrinking the fossil fuel industry, but through <a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-hit-its-kyoto-target-but-it-was-more-a-three-inch-putt-than-a-hole-in-one-44731">accounting tricks</a> using inscrutable “land sector abatement”. The Morrison government took this to new levels, allowing its signature <a href="http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/ERF/About-the-Emissions-Reduction-Fund">Emissions Reduction Fund</a> to become a <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-24/insider-blows-whistle-on-greenhouse-gas-reduction-schemes/100933186">super-generator</a> of <a href="https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/serious-integrity-concerns-around-australias-junk-carbon-credits/">dodgy offsets</a> and a <a href="https://australiainstitute.org.au/report/an-environmental-fig-leaf/">figleaf</a> for the <a href="https://www.afr.com/companies/energy/santos-eyes-carbon-credits-as-lucrative-revenue-stream-20220331-p5a9sx">expansion of the gas industry</a>. </p>
<p>Our previous government even projected it would meet its 2050 net zero emissions target through a combination of <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/praying-for-costless-climate-change-lord-send-down-a-miracle-20211028-p5944p.html">business-as-usual</a> and unspecified “<a href="https://www.industry.gov.au/sites/default/files/October%202021/document/australias-long-term-emissions-reduction-plan.pdf">technological breakthroughs</a>”. </p>
<p>Australians are now <a href="https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/australians-pay-the-price-for-fossil-fuel-dependence-while-coal-and-gas-exporters-make-windfall-profits/">paying the price</a> in not only climatic terms, but also financial terms, for being <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/jun/15/australias-energy-crisis-explained-from-price-caps-to-the-suspension-of-electricity-trading">too dependent</a> on polluting methane gas and on electricity produced from ageing, unreliable and even-more-polluting coal-fired power generators. </p>
<p>Both Teal independents and Greens have built their reputations on restoring integrity to politics. This gives them a mandate to scrutinise accounting rules, offset methodologies and assumptions behind whatever target Labor sets. </p>
<p>That’s a start. But to foster climate politics based on integrity, they’ll have to go much further to get to the root of the problem. </p>
<h2>We need a reckoning</h2>
<p>First, we need an honest conversation about the extent to which the fossil fuel industry has <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629621003649">captured Australian politics</a> and wider society, and how this has crippled our response to the climate crisis. </p>
<p>To expose the depth of our gas, oil and coal industry’s influence on public perceptions and elite institutions such as political parties, the media, and virtually every aspect of government — from <a href="https://www.australianforeignaffairs.com/articles/extract/2021/07/double-game">international diplomacy</a> to the <a href="https://reneweconomy.com.au/climate-denial-still-features-in-fossil-fuel-funded-education-materials/">school curriculum</a> – would require something like a royal commission. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-teal-independents-want-to-hold-government-to-account-that-starts-with-high-quality-information-184559">The teal independents want to hold government to account. That starts with high-quality information</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In recent years, investigations have been launched into the fossil fuel industry’s knowledge and practices around climate change by investigative bodies ranging from the <a href="https://www.mass.gov/lists/attorney-generals-office-exxon-investigation">Massachusetts Attorney General</a> to the <a href="https://www.climatechangenews.com/2022/05/10/philippines-inquiry-finds-polluters-liable-for-rights-violations-urging-litigation/">Philippines Human Rights Commission</a>. In the Massachusetts case, the Attorney-General’s three-year investigation of oil giant Exxon Mobil was followed by a <a href="https://www.mass.gov/lists/attorney-generals-office-lawsuit-against-exxonmobil">lawsuit</a> against the company, which is ongoing.</p>
<p>Investigating the practices and influence of Australia’s fossil fuel industry would lead naturally into a discussion of what can and must be done to restore integrity to our democracy — from bans on fossil fuel advertising and sponsorship to restrictions on lobbying, donations, and revolving-door and “<a href="https://theconversation.com/revealed-the-extent-of-job-swapping-between-public-servants-and-fossil-fuel-lobbyists-88695">golden escalator</a>” relationships. </p>
<p>We could look to Victoria’s <a href="https://www.vichealth.vic.gov.au/%7E/media/About%20Us/Story%20of%20Vichealth/Attachments/VictorianTobaccoAct_1987.ashx">pioneering approach</a> to tobacco in the 1980s, including banning tobacco advertising and promotion and buying out tobacco sponsorships from sports and arts bodies.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/469666/original/file-20220620-24-gsbh2f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Power station at night" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/469666/original/file-20220620-24-gsbh2f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/469666/original/file-20220620-24-gsbh2f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/469666/original/file-20220620-24-gsbh2f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/469666/original/file-20220620-24-gsbh2f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/469666/original/file-20220620-24-gsbh2f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/469666/original/file-20220620-24-gsbh2f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/469666/original/file-20220620-24-gsbh2f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Australians are now paying the price for being dependent on on electricity produced from ageing, unreliable coal-fired power generators.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>A principled phase-out</h2>
<p>Integrity is not only about honesty but also upholding <a href="https://www.dictionary.com/browse/integrity">moral principles</a>. A principled approach to fossil fuel production is sorely needed. Australia is among the <a href="https://australiainstitute.org.au/report/high-carbon-from-a-land-down-under-quantifying-co2-from-australias-fossil-fuel-mining-and-exports/">world’s largest exporters of fossil fuels</a>. </p>
<p>The emissions burned overseas from the coal and methane gas we export <a href="https://climateanalytics.org/media/australia_carbon_footprint_report_july2019.pdf">dwarf</a> the emissions produced within our borders. Our political leaders have long hidden behind claims that these exported emissions are the <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-04/australian-coal-exports-to-break-record/100964414">responsibility of the importing country</a>. </p>
<p>Never mind that we put the weight of our foreign and trade policy behind <a href="https://www.australianforeignaffairs.com/articles/extract/2021/07/double-game">cultivating</a> overseas demand for our fossil fuels. You might have also heard the <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/govt-adani-support-drug-dealers-defence/nh0n1op44">drug dealer’s defence</a> of “if we don’t export the coal and gas, someone else will”. All of these are hypocritical and opportunistic excuses – the opposite of adhering to moral principles. </p>
<p>Taking a principled stand means taking responsibility for problems to which we contribute, or that we have the power to redress, regardless of whether others are acting wrongfully. </p>
<p>It’s not beyond us. In other areas, successive Australian governments have performed admirably in taking a stand on issues from nuclear disarmament to the mining of asbestos. We stopped doing dangerous things like mining asbestos because they were wrong, and we used our diplomatic weight to persuade other countries to follow suit. </p>
<p>If Australia was to regain its moral compass on fossil fuels, we wouldn’t be acting alone. </p>
<p>A number of governments recently formed the <a href="https://beyondoilandgasalliance.com/">Beyond Oil & Gas Alliance</a>, which commits them to stop issuing new oil and gas exploration and production licences and to phase out existing oil and gas production on a timeframe aligned with the objectives of the Paris Agreement. Other governments, including New Zealand and California, have taken <a href="https://beyondoilandgasalliance.com/who-we-are/">significant steps</a> in that direction.</p>
<p>In this spirit, I hope the Teal independents join the Greens in <a href="https://greens.org.au/sites/default/files/2022-04/Greens-2022-Plan--Powering-Past-Coal-and-Gas.pdf">championing</a> an end to fossil fuel subsidies and a ban on new coal and gas projects. Not only is a ban the principled thing to do, but it will help protect existing <a href="https://australiainstitute.org.au/report/the-impact-of-galilee-basin-development-on-employment-in-existing-coal-regions/">fossil fuel jobs</a> for a transition period while governments plan a managed phase-out of the industry. </p>
<p>Phasing out this industry must happen while putting communities first and while amplifying the voices of those in the community already working to forge a future beyond fossil fuels. Fortuitously, the Teal independents know a thing or two about community-building. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-ultra-polluting-scarborough-pluto-gas-project-could-blow-through-labors-climate-target-and-it-just-got-the-green-light-184379">The ultra-polluting Scarborough-Pluto gas project could blow through Labor’s climate target – and it just got the green light</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/184748/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Fergus Green receives funding for some of his research from the Economic and Social Research Council (UK). He is a member of the Just Transition Taskforce of the Powering Past Coal Alliance, an intergovernmental body.</span></em></p>Australia needs an honest reckoning with the fossil fuel industry’s decades-long hold over Australian politics. Without that, we cannot shift to a principled stand against ceaseless expansion.Fergus Green, Lecturer in Political Theory and Public Policy, UCLLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1836452022-05-25T04:38:39Z2022-05-25T04:38:39ZAfter many false dawns, Australians finally voted for stronger climate action. Here’s why this election was different<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/465212/original/file-20220525-12-d8k9ck.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C50%2C5588%2C3653&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Getty</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Before the 2019 federal election, many people expected Australia would vote for faster climate action. That, of course, <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-20/what-happened-to-the-climate-change-vote/11128128">didn’t happen</a>. But just three years later, the climate election arrived at last. The question is – what changed? </p>
<p>In short: Reality hit. Over the Morrison government’s term, the east coast was ravaged by the Black Summer of megafires. Then came the devastating floods. These disasters proved to us what scientists have long predicted: climate change isn’t a future threat, it’s here, now. </p>
<p>Since 2019, Australia has been under growing international pressure to do more on climate, given we have (correctly) been seen as a laggard. With Biden replacing Trump, our isolation became clear at the Glasgow summit. Polls showed the result: more and more Australians named climate change as an important issue. </p>
<p>Morrison shrugged off these concerns with a non-binding “goal” of net zero by 2050. As Saturday’s election showed, Australians saw through these half-hearted measures and voted accordingly. </p>
<h2>Three years of public concern and international pressure</h2>
<p>Unexpected wins by the Greens in flood-affected seats along the Brisbane river gave a snapshot of voter sentiment. But earlier images of disaster – pensioners on rooftops in Lismore, overwhelmed firefighters and dying koalas – were hard to shake for many across the country. </p>
<p>In many ways, this election was a perfect storm for the Coalition. Since 2019, the impatience of the international community with Australian delay tactics was clear. Our Pacific neighbours had been consistently critical of Australia’s fossil fuel protectionism, regardless of promises of new funding for the region and the so-called <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/sep/27/ex-diplomats-warn-morrison-government-inertia-on-climate-undermines-our-credibility-as-a-regional-partner">Pacific step-up</a>. Scott Morrison’s speech to a nearly empty room at the climate summit at Glasgow made <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-australian-way-how-morrison-trashed-brand-australia-at-cop26-171670">our isolation</a> clear. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/if-80-of-australians-care-about-climate-action-why-dont-they-vote-like-it-157050">If 80% of Australians care about climate action, why don't they vote like it?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Joe Biden’s victory in the US meant Australians <a href="https://theconversation.com/under-biden-the-us-would-no-longer-be-a-climate-pariah-and-that-leaves-scott-morrison-exposed-144870">increasingly saw</a> our government as holdouts at the back of the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/09/australia-ranked-last-of-60-countries-for-policy-response-to-climate-crisis">international pack</a>. </p>
<p>These changes came through in growing public concern. Polling in 2021 showed a <a href="https://www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/climatepoll-2021">substantial majority</a> of Australians supported stronger emissions reduction commitments and a commitment to net zero emissions by 2050. Similarly, a YouGov poll in late 2021 found a majority of voters in <a href="https://www.acf.org.au/majority-in-every-seat-want-more-climate-action-poll">every Australian seat</a> wanted stronger action on climate change from the government. More than a quarter of voters rated climate change as <a href="https://www.acf.org.au/majority-in-every-seat-want-more-climate-action-poll">the most important issue</a> in determining their vote. </p>
<h2>A day late, a dollar short</h2>
<p>Despite the pressure and clear signals from voters, the Coalition went to the 2022 election with the emissions reduction targets announced by former Prime Minister Tony Abbott in 2015. In addition, they had a <a href="https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/is-australias-net-zero-emissions-target-actually-binding">non-binding ‘goal’</a> to reach net zero emissions by 2050, announced only after serious pressure and internal haggling. </p>
<p>The public was sceptical of this promise, due to efforts by segments of the Coalition to immediately walk this back. Outspoken Nationals senator Matt Canavan suggested on <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/apr/26/scott-morrison-forced-to-clarify-net-zero-commitment-amid-coalition-division">election eve</a> the government would consider walking away from its own net zero commitment. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-election-shows-the-conservative-culture-war-on-climate-change-could-be-nearing-its-end-183450">The election shows the conservative culture war on climate change could be nearing its end</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>With Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce leading the <a href="https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/the-mega-cost-of-getting-barnaby-joyce-to-back-net-zero-20220329-p5a93f">internal opposition</a> to net zero, there were concerns the Nationals could hold Australia <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-nationals-signing-up-to-net-zero-should-be-a-no-brainer-instead-theyre-holding-australia-to-ransom-168845">to ransom</a> on climate even after the election. </p>
<h2>We can’t say it was all climate – but it was a key factor</h2>
<p>For the Coalition, navigating climate change during the election campaign proved far more challenging than in 2019. </p>
<p>Crucially, they found themselves fighting on multiple fronts. In blue ribbon seats in Sydney and Melbourne the Coalition was confronted and in many cases, beaten, by well-resourced ‘teal’ candidates. These independents appealed to a traditionally conservative electorate concerned about climate change but less likely to switch to a left-leaning party. Liberal candidates in these electorates promised more action on climate, but <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/australian-conservative-party-faces-teal-independent-threat-84825594">not much</a> beyond that. </p>
<p>The Greens seemed an easier target for the government. Even so, the concentrated support for the third party in inner-city areas meant attacks by the government didn’t hurt. </p>
<p>Labor’s targets were more ambitious than the Coalition’s, which put them ahead for middle of the road voters concerned about climate change. But stung by their 2019 defeat, Labor actually went to the election with less ambitious emissions reductions targets than they had at the previous election: a 43% reduction by 2030. This made them a smaller target than in 2019 and able to avoid a Coalition <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/may/23/the-election-revealed-a-shift-in-climate-sentiment-but-what-will-it-mean-for-policy">scare campaign</a> on costs to jobs and the economy. This might have cost them in inner-city seats like Brisbane’s Griffith with strong Greens campaigns. But it allowed them to hold seats with strong mining constituencies, like Hunter in NSW. </p>
<p>For the Coalition, the changing facts on the ground made it much harder to even run a scare campaign on the costs of climate action. The <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2021/nov/04/fossil-fuel-assets-worthless-2036-net-zero-transition">anticipated declining market</a> for fossil fuels, significant and <a href="https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/australian-fossil-fuel-subsidies-surge-to-11-6-billion-in-2021-22/">well-publicised</a> government subsidies for the fossil fuel sector, the plummeting <a href="https://www.irena.org/publications/2021/Jun/Renewable-Power-Costs-in-2020">cost of renewables</a> and the ballooning costs of <a href="https://theconversation.com/with-costs-approaching-100-billion-the-fires-are-australias-costliest-natural-disaster-129433">climate change impacts</a> all undermined the power of the narrative that Australia had to choose between economy and jobs or climate action. </p>
<p>Young voters registered to vote in <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-22/influc-of-young-people-sign-up-to-vote-at-federal-election-/101007002">record numbers</a>, while we saw formidable ground campaigns from <a href="https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/greens-go-old-school-to-win-the-battle-for-brisbane-20220523-p5anpb">the Greens</a> and teal independents. </p>
<h2>Does this spell the end of toxic climate politics?</h2>
<p>If 2022 was the long-anticipated climate election, is it also the end of the toxic politics of climate change in Australia? </p>
<p>That depends on how the Coalition deals with the sting of this defeat. Will they seize the chance for a reset on climate? Or will we see a further shift to the right? Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce has already signalled the possibility of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/may/23/barnaby-joyce-signals-nationals-could-drop-support-for-net-zero-emissions">abandoning net zero</a>. With moderate Liberal MPs now thin on the ground, there’s no guarantee of bipartisanship. </p>
<p>If the Coalition doubles down on climate delaying tactics, it would ensure its electoral irrelevance and make genuine climate action easier to achieve in Australia, one of the world’s last holdouts. </p>
<p><em>The Conversation’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/our-election-coverage-has-been-driven-by-your-agenda-not-politicians-183346">#Settheagenda poll</a> of more than 10,000 readers found more than 60% rated climate change as the top concern for them this election</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/183645/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matt McDonald has received funding from the Australian Research Council and the Economic and Social Research Council (UK)</span></em></p>This election was a perfect storm for the Coalition, with fires, floods and international criticism dialing up the pressure for climate action. In the end, Australia made the decision for them.Matt McDonald, Associate Professor of International Relations, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1835482022-05-23T04:17:23Z2022-05-23T04:17:23ZThe election showed Australia’s huge appetite for stronger climate action. What levers can the new government pull?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/464710/original/file-20220523-11-i17sdh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=17%2C0%2C3921%2C2208&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>As the polls closed on Saturday night, most election commentary focused on the dispiriting campaign where both major parties avoided any substantial division on policy issues and instead focused on negatively framing the opposing leader. </p>
<p>Even to many seasoned political minds, the most likely outcome seemed to be a reversal of the last parliament, with Labor winning enough seats to form a narrow majority, and one or two more seats falling to independents. As we all now know, the outcome was utterly different. The Liberals lost many of their crown jewels to climate challengers – teal independents and the Greens. </p>
<p>This means the new Labor government now has a different challenge on climate. Rather than trying to keep check on concessions to the cross-bench, Labor must now find ways to pursue more ambitious climate policies. Labor can’t pull the most effective lever available – a carbon price – after the Liberals successfully poisoned the well. But there are other ways to accelerate Australia’s shift to cleaner and greener, such as through public investment in large-scale solar and wind. </p>
<p>The next three years will be challenging economically and politically. But the transformation wrought by the election has opened up the possibility of a similar transformation of climate policy. With bold action, a bright future awaits.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/464709/original/file-20220523-15124-828mxw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C5982%2C3997&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Solar farm by sea" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/464709/original/file-20220523-15124-828mxw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C5982%2C3997&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/464709/original/file-20220523-15124-828mxw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/464709/original/file-20220523-15124-828mxw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/464709/original/file-20220523-15124-828mxw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/464709/original/file-20220523-15124-828mxw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/464709/original/file-20220523-15124-828mxw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/464709/original/file-20220523-15124-828mxw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Government backing for large scale renewables could be one lever Labor could pull.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Climate proved critical</h2>
<p>Labor’s path to victory was unusual. The party taking government will do so despite its primary vote slumping to a postwar low, far below the level of routs seen in 1996 and 1975. </p>
<p>Outside Western Australia (where the result was driven largely by the success of the McGowan government’s Covid policy), Labor barely moved the dial. So far Labor has taken five seats from the Liberals (with some Labor-held seats still in doubt) while losing Fowler to an independent and Griffith to the Greens. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/carbon-pricing-works-the-largest-ever-study-puts-it-beyond-doubt-142034">Carbon pricing works: the largest-ever study puts it beyond doubt</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The big shock in this election was the loss of a string of formerly safe Liberal seats to Greens and “teal” independents. All of these candidates campaigned primarily on climate change, an issue the major parties, and most of the mainstream media had agreed should be put to one side as too dangerous and divisive. </p>
<p>During the campaign, the possibility of a hung parliament drew attention. In response, both major parties vowed (not very credibly) that they would never do a deal with Greens or independents to secure office. Realistically, it seemed possible that Labor might offer a slightly more ambitious program on climate policy in order to make minority government easier.</p>
<p>In retrospect, it’s clear that this type of analysis assumed Australia’s long-standing political pattern would continue: a two-party system, with a handful of cross-benchers occasionally playing the role of kingmaker. All of the media commentary leading up to the election took this for granted. The “teal” independents were seen as a possible threat to two or three urban Liberals and the Greens were, for all practical purposes, ignored.</p>
<p>What we have instead is a shock to this system. Australia now has a radically changed political scene in which the assumptions of the two-party system no longer apply. Even if Labor scrapes in with a majority, it is unlikely to be sustained at the next election, given the challenging economic circumstances the incoming government will face. As for the LNP, unless they can regain some of the seats lost to independents and Greens, they have almost no chance of forming a majority government at the next election, even with a big win over Labor in traditionally competitive seats.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/464711/original/file-20220523-19-4b7a5o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Power pylons" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/464711/original/file-20220523-19-4b7a5o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/464711/original/file-20220523-19-4b7a5o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/464711/original/file-20220523-19-4b7a5o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/464711/original/file-20220523-19-4b7a5o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/464711/original/file-20220523-19-4b7a5o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=531&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/464711/original/file-20220523-19-4b7a5o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=531&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/464711/original/file-20220523-19-4b7a5o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=531&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Labor’s proposed Rewiring the Nation corporation is aimed at making the grid renewable-ready.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Adapting to political change</h2>
<p>Labor’s challenge now is to adapt to this new world. They will have to find ways of delivering what the electorate clearly wants on climate, after ruling out most of the obvious options in the course of the campaign. The new leader of the LNP will have the unenviable task of winning back lost Liberal heartlands while placating a party room dominated by climate denialists and coal fans.</p>
<p>Having ruled out a carbon price, Labor will need to be much more aggressive with the <a href="http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/NGER/The-safeguard-mechanism">safeguard mechanism</a> it inherits from the LNP. By itself, this won’t be nearly enough. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-is-about-to-be-hit-by-a-carbon-tax-whether-the-prime-minister-likes-it-or-not-except-the-proceeds-will-go-overseas-170959">Australia is about to be hit by a carbon tax whether the prime minister likes it or not, except the proceeds will go overseas</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The real need is to promote rapid growth in large-scale solar and wind energy, and to push much harder on the transition to to electric vehicles. Some of this could be done through direct public investment, on the model of Queensland’s <a href="https://cleancoqueensland.com.au/">CleanCo</a>, or through expanded use of concessional finance using the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the new Rewiring the Nation Corporation. The great political appeal of this approach is that all of these agencies are off-budget and therefore won’t count in measures of public debt, which is bound to grow in coming years due to pandemic spending.</p>
<p>Democracy, however imperfect, works through the possibility of renewal and change. What this election has shown us that the political system can change. Now comes the task of applying politics – the art of the possible – to the challenge of switching our energy systems from fossil fuels to clean power. It’s our best chance yet. </p>
<p><em>Correction: A previous version of this article mentioned Cowper rather than Fowler as the Labor seat lost to an independent.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/183548/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Quiggin is a former Member of the Climate Change Authority</span></em></p>Doing as little as possible on climate change was a seemingly safe political strategy until recently. As of Saturday night, it’s a recipe for political disaster.John Quiggin, Professor, School of Economics, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1697352021-10-19T03:30:05Z2021-10-19T03:30:05ZChildren deserve answers to their questions about climate change. Here’s how universities can help<p>Our children are growing up in a volatile climate. It’s already damaging their <a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-change-is-resulting-in-profound-immediate-and-worsening-health-impacts-over-120-researchers-say-151027">health</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-change-will-cost-a-young-australian-up-to-245-000-over-their-lifetime-court-case-reveals-161175">wealth</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-change-is-harming-childrens-mental-health-and-this-is-just-the-start-168070">well-being</a>. Universities can be leaders in helping young people gain the knowledge they need to navigate this uncertain future. <a href="https://curiousclimate.org.au/schools/">Curious Climate Schools</a>, a project that connects young people directly with experts who can answer their climate questions, is a model for just this kind of leadership.</p>
<p>Universities across the globe come together this week to support climate action leadership in their communities as part of <a href="https://www.globalclimatechangeweek.net/">Global Climate Change Week</a>. In Tasmania, our Curious Climate Schools project has connected over 1,000 school students, aged 10-18, with 57 climate researchers from diverse disciplines to answer students’ questions.</p>
<p>Climate change will increasingly affect our children’s lives, even if we take the profound action needed this decade to avert the worst of it. Young people will need to be climate-literate for the world they are inheriting. Although learning about climate change is established as vital in enhancing understanding and action, climate literacy education is <a href="https://theconversation.com/ever-wondered-what-our-curriculum-teaches-kids-about-climate-change-the-answer-is-not-much-123272">not mandated</a> in the <a href="https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/">Australian Curriculum</a>. </p>
<p>Our aim is to empower children to develop essential climate knowledge through student-led enquiry. Our experts’ answers to questions from schools across the state will be made public on the <a href="https://curiousclimate.org.au/schools/">Curious Climate Schools website</a> on November 1. This will coincide with the <a href="https://ukcop26.org/">COP26 climate summit</a>, connecting local and global climate leadership.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/more-reasons-for-optimism-on-climate-change-than-weve-seen-for-decades-2-climate-experts-explain-159233">More reasons for optimism on climate change than we've seen for decades: 2 climate experts explain</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>What do young people want to know?</h2>
<p>Students have submitted questions to our project that range from the global to the local. Key themes in their questions included:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>who is responsible?</p></li>
<li><p>how urgent is action?</p></li>
<li><p>how do we adapt and care for the planet and its future inhabitants?</p></li>
<li><p>why aren’t politicians listening?</p></li>
</ul>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1448773884010848257"}"></div></p>
<p>The children had many queries about the science of climate change, but even more about our social and political responses. For example:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“I’m 13. What do you think climate change will alter about the world in my lifetime, and what can I do about it?”</p>
<p>“Does the climate crisis have the potential to unite humanity in response?”</p>
<p>“When it comes to future generations, how will they feel about what we have done?”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>While children are interested in the physical science behind climate change, their questions show they are equally concerned with how we should act on climate as a society. This suggests that when climate change is taught in schools, it should be taught holistically. While understanding the drivers of climate change is important, teaching must also address the social challenges we face and the decision-making processes this wicked problem demands. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/free-schools-guide-about-inclusiveness-and-climate-science-is-not-ideological-its-based-on-evidence-162423">Free schools guide about inclusiveness and climate science is not ideological — it's based on evidence</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>A way to counter climate anxiety</h2>
<p>The current silence on climate in schools’ teaching is bad for children’s mental health. <a href="https://climateoutreach.org/reports/how-to-have-a-climate-change-conversation-talking-climate/">Research has established</a> that speaking about climate change is an important first step in easing legitimate climate anxiety. Education that enables students’ agency through climate literacy could reduce the mental health burden on young people.</p>
<p>We need climate-literate young people. Empowering them to talk about climate change could both improve their mental health and help to build the engaged citizenry and leadership we need to face the climate crisis. </p>
<p>Acknowledging that children have a stake in climate action and decision-making is vital. Without this, they feel disempowered and frustrated. We saw this in some of the questions submitted to Curious Climate Schools.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Do you believe that we as the future leaders are being heard enough? For example, Scott Morrison or the other politicians, are they listening?”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>These students are our future leaders. They deserve to be heard.</p>
<h2>A model for university climate leadership</h2>
<p>Many universities are well equipped to address local climate challenges in partnership with their communities. Curious Climate Schools is an example of how universities can engage with the public to enhance climate knowledge and action. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/this-is-how-universities-can-lead-climate-action-147191">This is how universities can lead climate action</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Our project is harnessing the knowledge, care and enthusiasm of 57 experts. They work in a range of fields, including climate modelling, biodiversity conservation, pyrogeography, chemistry, law, social science, engineering, geology, oceanography, paleoclimatology, Indigenous knowledges and health. </p>
<p>The Curious Climate Schools website will equip students with holistic climate knowledge and help teachers to address a subject at the forefront of students’ minds – if not the Australian Curriculum.</p>
<p>With initiatives like Curious Climate Schools, universities can be <a href="https://theconversation.com/this-is-how-universities-can-lead-climate-action-147191">leaders in climate action</a>. In this decisive moment, it is crucial that we harness our collective talents in whatever ways we can to ensure a liveable world for our children.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/169735/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gabi Mocatta received funding from the Centre for Marine Socioecology, the University of Tasmania and the Tasmanian Climate Change Office for the research and engagement reported in this article. She is co-lead of the Climate Change Communication and Narratives Network, funded by Deakin University, and vice-president of the Board of the International Environmental Communication Association.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Chloe Lucas received funding from the Centre for Marine Socioecology, the University of Tasmania, and the Tasmanian Climate Change Office for the research and engagement reported in this article. She is also funded by the Australian Research Council. Chloe is a member of the Centre for Marine Socioecology, the Institute of Australian Geographers and the International Environmental Communication Association, and is a member of the Editorial Board of Australian Geographer.</span></em></p>University experts are well placed to equip students with holistic climate knowledge and help teachers cover a subject that’s neglected by the Australian Curriculum.Gabi Mocatta, Research Fellow in Climate Change Communication, Climate Futures Program, University of Tasmania, and Lecturer in Communication - Journalism, Deakin UniversityChloe Lucas, Research Fellow, Geography, Planning and Spatial Sciences, University of TasmaniaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1593812021-04-21T20:14:53Z2021-04-21T20:14:53ZScott Morrison can’t spin this one: Australia’s climate pledges at this week’s summit won’t convince the world we’re serious<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/396224/original/file-20210421-23-1ojc2rj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=33%2C33%2C5573%2C3699&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Bianca De Marchi/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Days out from a much-anticipated <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/03/26/president-biden-invites-40-world-leaders-to-leaders-summit-on-climate/">climate summit</a> convened by US President Joe Biden, the federal government has moved to position itself as serious about emissions reduction.</p>
<p>On Wednesday Prime Minister Scott Morrison <a href="https://theconversation.com/hydrogen-and-carbon-capture-receive-extra-funding-as-morrison-prepares-for-biden-summit-159361">pledged</a> A$539 million to advance two emerging technologies: clean hydrogen and carbon-capture and storage (CCS). </p>
<p>When Morrison takes the virtual global stage this week, we can expect he’ll point to this investment and other dubious climate policies, as well as roll out carefully chosen facts to paint the government in the best possible light.</p>
<p>Such an approach may appease the Coalition party room, and perhaps some voters. But most Australians want real action on climate change. And the rest of the world, accustomed to Australia’s shifty climate stance, is unlikely to fall for Morrison’s diversion tactics.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Person in Scott Morrison mask leans over burning globe, holding tongs" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/396209/original/file-20210421-15-15x73di.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=14%2C547%2C4916%2C2957&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/396209/original/file-20210421-15-15x73di.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=427&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/396209/original/file-20210421-15-15x73di.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=427&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/396209/original/file-20210421-15-15x73di.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=427&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/396209/original/file-20210421-15-15x73di.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=536&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/396209/original/file-20210421-15-15x73di.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=536&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/396209/original/file-20210421-15-15x73di.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=536&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The world is watching Australia’s climate policies closely. Pictured: a protestor wearing a face mask depicting Morrison during a protest in March.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Darren England/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>A perfect storm</h2>
<p>Biden has invited 40 world leaders to the virtual summit, which begins on Thursday night our time. He is expected to announce a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/26/joe-biden-climate-change-virtual-summit">significant new</a> emissions reduction commitment for the US, and call on other nations to ramp up climate action.</p>
<p>Australia goes into the meeting firmly on the back foot. It’s widely viewed as a laggard on emissions reduction and in 2020 <a href="https://www.climate-change-performance-index.org">ranked last</a> on climate policy among 57 countries and the European Union.</p>
<p>Australia’s key coal export markets in <a href="https://theconversation.com/china-just-stunned-the-world-with-its-step-up-on-climate-action-and-the-implications-for-australia-may-be-huge-147268">China</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/south-koreas-green-new-deal-shows-the-world-what-a-smart-economic-recovery-looks-like-145032">South Korea</a> and <a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/2258163-japan-steps-up-climate-ambition-with-2050-net-zero-emissions-goal/">Japan</a> have all recently outlined a timetable for net zero emissions, while the <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/strategies/2050_en">European Union</a> committed to this target long ago.</p>
<p>Morrison <a href="https://theconversation.com/scott-morrison-has-embraced-net-zero-emissions-now-its-time-to-walk-the-talk-154478">says</a> a net-zero goal is his preference but has not yet committed to it.</p>
<p>Australia will also face pressure to up its climate game while negotiating post-Brexit <a href="https://theconversation.com/our-trade-talks-with-europe-and-britain-are-set-to-become-climate-talks-130544">trade deals</a> with the UK and EU. The EU has already <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-03-11/australia-to-face-huge-tariffs-in-europe-over-climate-emissions/13233360">announced plans</a> to introduce a carbon levy on all imports.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/morrison-has-embraced-net-zero-emissions-its-time-to-walk-the-talk-154478">Morrison has embraced net-zero emissions – it's time to walk the talk</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Pacific leaders in a line" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/396219/original/file-20210421-15-n46dor.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/396219/original/file-20210421-15-n46dor.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/396219/original/file-20210421-15-n46dor.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/396219/original/file-20210421-15-n46dor.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/396219/original/file-20210421-15-n46dor.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/396219/original/file-20210421-15-n46dor.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/396219/original/file-20210421-15-n46dor.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Pacific leaders want Australia to transition away from fossil fuels.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mick Tsikas/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Closer to home, Australia’s Pacific neighbours – for whom climate change is an issue of survival – <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-18/australia-pacific-step-up-in-review/11863150">have demanded</a> Australia transition away from fossil fuels. Australia committed to increase its diplomatic engagement with the region through the so-called <a href="https://www.dfat.gov.au/countries/pacific-step">Pacific Step-Up</a>, but there are clear signs our poor climate action performance is <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/pacific-leaders-tell-australia-its-step-up-policy-will-fail-without-strong-climate-change-action">undermining</a> this pledge.</p>
<p>Ahead of the summit, the Morrison government also faces domestic pressure on climate policy. Even before the devastating Black Summer bushfires, a <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-08/australians-think-climate-change-bigger-threat-than-terrorism/11091276">survey found</a> Australians considered climate change as the most serious threat to the national interest. And <a href="https://poll.lowyinstitute.org/themes/climate-change-and-energy/">Lowy polls</a> consistently point to public support for strong climate action. </p>
<p>Even Australian-based industry groups and businesses have <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-bit-rich-business-groups-want-urgent-climate-action-after-resisting-it-for-30-years-145302">called for</a> a transition away from fossil fuels. This includes the traditionally conservative National Farmers Federation, which is <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-20/farmers-back-zero-emissions/12576806">calling for</a> a net-zero commitment.</p>
<p>But any attempt by Morrison to embrace a stronger climate stance will be met with opposition from some in the Coalition party room. Queensland Nationals senator Matt Canavan sent a public warning to the Prime Minister on Tuesday, tweeting: </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1384274045256884225"}"></div></p>
<h2>Morrison’s smoke screen</h2>
<p>So where does this leave Morrison as he prepares to address the leaders summit? As US climate scientist Michael Mann <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/apr/15/morrison-government-cant-conceal-inaction-on-climate-from-us-with-smoke-and-mirrors">pointed out</a> in The Guardian, the Morrison government appears to be deploying a smoke-and-mirrors approach – loudly promoting policies such as its low-emissions technology roadmap “to distract from their clear record of inaction on climate”.</p>
<p>The announcement of A$539 million for clean hydrogen and carbon-capture and storage (CCS) seems proof of that. And there are plenty of reasons to be concerned if the government sees this spending as a core pillar of its response to the climate emergency. </p>
<p>Carbon capture and storage <a href="https://phys.org/news/2020-05-hydrological-limits-carbon-capture-storage.html">requires significant</a> amounts of water for cooling. It’s extremely expensive to establish and run, and only applies to electricity generation. The method is <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-heres-the-lowdown-on-australias-low-emissions-roadmap-146743">unproven at scale</a>, and still releases substantial CO₂. CCS also involves subsidising the fossil fuel sector, rather than investing funds into new forms of renewable energy. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-change-is-a-security-threat-the-government-keeps-ignoring-well-show-up-empty-handed-to-yet-another-global-summit-158702">Climate change is a security threat the government keeps ignoring. We'll show up empty handed to yet another global summit</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Hydrogen is potentially a clean energy source, but <a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-is-at-a-crossroads-in-the-global-hydrogen-race-and-one-path-looks-risky-157864">only when produced</a> using renewable electricity. The government has left the door open to supporting hydrogen produced using fossil fuels, where the carbon is captured and stored.</p>
<p>There are also concerns Australia has <a href="https://australiainstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/P725-Japan-Aus-hydrogen-report-FINAL_0.pdf">radically overestimated</a> the likely extent of the export market for hydrogen.</p>
<p>We can expect Australia to trot out other dubious claims to climate action at this week’s summit. Morrison this week told a business dinner that “domestic emissions have already fallen by 36% from 2005 levels” – a figure that conveniently <a href="https://www.afr.com/chanticleer/morrison-is-well-behind-in-the-climate-game-20210420-p57krv">omits</a> fugitive emissions from coal and gas produced for export.</p>
<p>And Morrison is sure to spruik the decline in Australia’s per capita emissions. But as I’ve <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-answer-the-argument-that-australias-emissions-are-too-small-to-make-a-difference-118825">pointed out before</a>, our emissions per capita remain disproportionately high, even among <a href="https://www.climatecollege.unimelb.edu.au/facts4paris-australias-capita-emissions-remain-highest-among-its-key-trading-partners">key trading partners</a>. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1384198094762299398"}"></div></p>
<h2>The world is watching</h2>
<p>The technology funding is Morrison’s attempt to walk the line between competing pressures. It throws a lifeline to the fossil fuel industry and placates internal party dissent, while attempting to appear to the rest of the world that Australia is acting on climate change. </p>
<p>But the announcement is telling for what it isn’t: a clear commitment to achieving net zero emissions by the middle of the century, or an increase in its Paris Agreement targets – currently set at a 26-28% emission cut between 2005 and 2030. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/21/morrison-government-flags-540m-for-hydrogen-and-carbon-capture-ahead-of-biden-summit">Reports suggest</a> Morrison is not expected to make a concrete pledge on either policy at the summit. </p>
<p>But public concern, international action and market forces are all pushing in the opposite direction to the Morrison government. This creates a sense the government’s position on climate change simply isn’t sustainable. </p>
<p>And this week’s summit puts Australia under global scrutiny like never before. As US Secretary of State Antony Blinken warned this week:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Our diplomats will challenge the practices of countries whose action – or inaction – is setting the world back […] When countries continue to rely on coal for a significant amount of their energy, or invest in new coal factories, or allow for massive deforestation, they will hear from the United States and our partners about how harmful these actions are.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It appears the US, at least, won’t be convinced on the sincerity of the Morrison government’s climate concern, or the adequacy of its actions.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/failure-is-not-an-option-after-a-lost-decade-on-climate-action-the-2020s-offer-one-last-chance-158913">'Failure is not an option': after a lost decade on climate action, the 2020s offer one last chance</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/159381/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matt McDonald has received funding from the UK's Economic and Social Research Council and the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p>The world, accustomed to Australia’s shifty climate stance, is unlikely to fall for Morrison’s diversion tactics at Biden’s climate summit this week.Matt McDonald, Associate Professor of International Relations, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1584482021-04-07T02:43:20Z2021-04-07T02:43:20ZIs Malcolm Turnbull the only Liberal who understands economics and climate science – or the only one who’ll talk about it?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/393696/original/file-20210407-19-6y4tzj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=130%2C92%2C5005%2C2764&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Darren England/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Yesterday, former Liberal prime minister Malcolm Turnbull was unceremoniously <a href="https://www.9news.com.au/national/malcolm-turnbull-dumped-as-chair-of-nsw-climate-change-advisory-board/29f2f8c9-537c-4745-a7d1-4ddf8cb2aa3b">dumped</a> as chair of the New South Wales government’s climate advisory board, just a week after being offered the role. His crime? He questioned the wisdom of building new coal mines when the existing ones are already floundering.</p>
<p>No-one would suggest building new hotels in Cairns to help that city’s <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04-19/coronavirus-queensland-regional-tourism-cairns-hotels-reef/12158486">struggling</a> tourism industry. But among modern Liberals it’s patently heresy to ask how rushing to green light <a href="https://reneweconomy.com.au/surge-in-new-coal-mine-proposals-in-nsw-triggers-fresh-calls-for-coal-moratorium/">11 proposed coal mines</a> in the Hunter Valley helps the struggling coal industry.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/glencore-to-suspend-hunter-valley-coal-mines-as-china-restricts-imports-20200807-p55jlw.html">Coal mines</a> in the Hunter are already operating <a href="https://www.afr.com/companies/mining/coal-mines-rail-and-ports-slowed-by-rains-20210322-p57d0g">well below capacity</a> and have been <a href="https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2160532-australias-hvo-coal-mine-cuts-workforce">laying off workers</a> in the face of <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12-21/international-energy-agency-says-coal-demand-peaked-in-2013/13001140">declining</a> world demand for coal, <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth">plummeting</a> renewable energy prices and trade sanctions <a href="https://theconversation.com/forget-about-the-trade-spat-coal-is-passe-in-much-of-china-and-thats-a-bigger-problem-for-australia-153300">imposed</a> by China. The problem isn’t a shortage of supply, but an abundance. </p>
<p>The simple truth is building new coal mines will simply make matters worse, especially for workers in existing coal mines that have already been mothballed or had their output scaled back.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="coal mine in the Hunter Valley" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/393697/original/file-20210407-19-1wkhbxj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/393697/original/file-20210407-19-1wkhbxj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=389&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/393697/original/file-20210407-19-1wkhbxj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=389&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/393697/original/file-20210407-19-1wkhbxj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=389&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/393697/original/file-20210407-19-1wkhbxj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=489&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/393697/original/file-20210407-19-1wkhbxj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=489&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/393697/original/file-20210407-19-1wkhbxj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=489&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Turnbull has called for a moratorium on new coal mines in the Hunter Valley, such as the one pictured above.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Dean Lewins/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It gets worse. Once an enormous, dusty, noisy open cut coal mine is approved, the agriculture, wine, tourism and horse breeding industries – all major employers in the Hunter Valley – are reluctant to invest nearby. While building new coal mines hurts workers in existing coal mines, the mere act of approving new coal mines harms investment in job creation in the <a href="https://www.newcastleherald.com.au/story/5889426/report-time-is-up-for-coal-in-the-hunter/">industries</a> that offer the Hunter a smooth transition from coal.</p>
<p>The NSW planning department doesn’t have a plan for how many new coal mines are needed to meet world demand. Nor does it have a plan for how much expansion of rail and port infrastructure is required to meet the output of all the new mines being proposed. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/forget-about-the-trade-spat-coal-is-passe-in-much-of-china-and-thats-a-bigger-problem-for-australia-153300">Forget about the trade spat – coal is passé in much of China, and that's a bigger problem for Australia</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>That’s why my colleagues and I <a href="https://australiainstitute.org.au/report/one-step-forward-two-steps-back/">recently called for a moratorium</a> on new coal mines in the Hunter until such plans were made explicit. Just as you wouldn’t approve 1,000 new homes in a town where the sewerage system was already at capacity, it makes no sense to approve 11 new coal mines in a region that couldn’t export that much coal if it tried.</p>
<p>But if there’s one thing that defines the debate about coal in Australia, its that it makes no sense. </p>
<p>Just as it made no sense for then-treasurer Scott Morrison to wave a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/feb/09/scott-morrison-brings-coal-to-question-time-what-fresh-idiocy-is-this">lump of coal</a> around in parliament in 2017, it makes no sense for right-wing commentators to pretend approving new mines will help create jobs in coal mining. And it makes no sense for the National Party to ignore the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-33647189">pleas of farmers</a> to protect their land from the damage coal mines do.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Scott Morrison with a lump of coal to Question Time in 2017." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/393698/original/file-20210407-13-1btbj1c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/393698/original/file-20210407-13-1btbj1c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/393698/original/file-20210407-13-1btbj1c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/393698/original/file-20210407-13-1btbj1c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/393698/original/file-20210407-13-1btbj1c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/393698/original/file-20210407-13-1btbj1c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/393698/original/file-20210407-13-1btbj1c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Scott Morrison took a lump of coal to Question Time in 2017.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Lukas Coch/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>On the surface, Turnbull’s support for a pause on approving new mines while a plan is developed is old-fashioned centrism. It protects existing coal workers from new, <a href="https://im-mining.com/2018/07/26/australia-coal-mine-automation-increase-post-2025-says-woodmac/">highly automated</a> mines, it protects farmers and it should make those concerned with climate change at least a bit happy. Win. Win. Win.</p>
<p>But there’s no room for a sensible centre in the Australian coal debate. And when someone even suggests the industry might not be set to grow, its army of loyal parliamentary and media supporters swing into action.</p>
<p>Labor’s Joel Fitzgibbon <a href="https://www.facebook.com/JoelFitzgibbonMP/posts/4006442726068264">said</a> Turnbull “wants to make the Upper Hunter a coal-mine-free zone”. The Nationals’ Matt Canavan <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/environment/sustainability/turnbull-calls-for-halt-on-new-coal-mines-inquiry-on-rehabilitation-funds-20210331-p57fji.html">suggested</a> stopping coal exports was “an inhumane policy to keep people in poverty”. The head of the NSW Minerals Council <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/environment/sustainability/turnbull-calls-for-halt-on-new-coal-mines-inquiry-on-rehabilitation-funds-20210331-p57fji.html">suggested</a> 12,000 jobs were at risk.</p>
<p>But of course, the opposite is true. Turnbull’s proposal to protect existing coal workers from competition from new mines would save jobs, not threaten them. He didn’t suggest coal mines be shut down tomorrow, or even early. And, given existing coal mines are running so far below capacity, his call has no potential to impact coal exports.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/labor-politicians-need-not-fear-queenslanders-are-no-more-attached-to-coal-than-the-rest-of-australia-148993">Labor politicians need not fear: Queenslanders are no more attached to coal than the rest of Australia</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Coal workers" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/393699/original/file-20210407-21-ik86mj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/393699/original/file-20210407-21-ik86mj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/393699/original/file-20210407-21-ik86mj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/393699/original/file-20210407-21-ik86mj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/393699/original/file-20210407-21-ik86mj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/393699/original/file-20210407-21-ik86mj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/393699/original/file-20210407-21-ik86mj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Opening new coal mines won’t help save the jobs of existing coal workers.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Dan Himbrechts/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Predictably, the Murdoch press ran a relentlessly misleading campaign in support of the coal industry and in <a href="https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=DTWEB_WRE170_a_GGL&dest=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailytelegraph.com.au%2Fnews%2Fjames-morrow-climate-warrior-malcolm-turnbull-wasnt-always-a-clean-green-anticoal-machine%2Fnews-story%2Fda8cf549cd63501a29e666a74a27fde7&memtype=anonymous&mode=premium">opposition</a> to their least favourite Liberal PM. But surprisingly, the NSW government <a href="https://www.perthnow.com.au/politics/turnbulls-coal-comments-sealed-his-fate-c-2532115">rolled over</a> in record time. </p>
<p>While the government might think appeasing the coal industry will play well among some older regional voters, they must know such kowtowing is a gift to independents such as Zali Steggall, and a fundamental threat to inner-city Liberals such as Dave Sharma, Jason Falinski and Trent Zimmerman.</p>
<p>The decision to dump Turnbull might have bought NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian some respite from attacks from the Daily Telegraph. But such denial of economics and climate science will provide no respite for existing coal workers in shuttered coal mines or the agriculture and tourism industry that is looking to expand.</p>
<p>No doubt the National Party are pleased with their latest scalp. But it must be remembered this is the party that last year wanted to wage a <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-nsw-koala-wars-showed-one-thing-the-nationals-appear-ill-equipped-to-help-rural-australia-146000">war against koalas</a> on behalf of property developers. Such political instincts might help the Nationals fend off the <a href="https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6246848669001">threat</a> from One Nation in regional areas but it does nothing to retain votes in leafy Liberal strongholds that deliver most Liberal seats.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/arent-we-in-a-drought-the-australian-black-coal-industry-uses-enough-water-for-over-5-million-people-137591">Aren't we in a drought? The Australian black coal industry uses enough water for over 5 million people</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/158448/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Richard Denniss is the Chief Economist of The Australia Institute. He was a senior strategic advisor to Australian Greens Leader Senator Bob Brown and Chief of Staff to Senator Natasha Stott-Despoja, former Leader of the Australian Democrats.</span></em></p>Among modern Liberals it’s patently heresy to ask how rushing to green light 11 proposed coal mines in the Hunter Valley helps the struggling coal industry.Richard Denniss, Adjunct Professor, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1294462020-01-09T04:54:52Z2020-01-09T04:54:52ZAs fires rage, we must use social media for long-term change, not just short-term fundraising<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/308955/original/file-20200108-107204-1rv6ofj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=452%2C18%2C766%2C570&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Comedian Celeste Barber's fundraising efforts have gained monumental support. But we need to think of long-term engagement in climate action too.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.facebook.com/donate/1010958179269977/">Facebook</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>With 26 fatalities, half a billion animals impacted and 10.7 million hectares of land burnt, Australia faces a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2020/jan/08/nsw-fires-live-updates-victoria-bushfires-south-australia-fire-sa-australian-bushfire-near-me-rfs-cfa-latest-news-wednesday">record-breaking bushfire season</a>. </p>
<p>Yet, amid the despondency, moving stories have emerged of phenomenal fundraising conducted through social media. </p>
<p>At the forefront is Australian comedian Celeste Barber, whose <a href="https://www.facebook.com/donate/1010958179269977/">Facebook fundraiser</a> has raised more than AUD$45 million - the <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com.au/celeste-barber-facebook-bushfires-fundraiser-2020-1">largest amount in the platform’s history</a>. </p>
<p>Presenting shocking visuals, sites such as Instagram, Twitter and Facebook have been monumental in communicating the severity of the fires. </p>
<p>But at a time when experts predict worsening climate conditions and longer fire seasons, short bursts of compassion and donations aren’t enough. </p>
<p>For truly effective action against current and future fires, we need to use social media to implement lasting transformations, to our attitudes, and our ability to address climate change.</p>
<h2>Get out of your echo-chamber</h2>
<p>Links between social media and public engagement are complex. Their combination can be helpful, as we’re witnessing, but doesn’t necessarily help solve problems requiring long-term attention.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-change-is-bringing-a-new-world-of-bushfires-123261">Climate change is bringing a new world of bushfires</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Online spaces can cultivate <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/05/why-social-media-ruining-political-discourse/589108/">polarising, and sometimes harmful, debate</a>.</p>
<p>Past research indicates <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0206841">the presence of online echo chambers</a>, and users’ tendency to <a href="https://theconversation.com/dont-just-blame-echo-chambers-conspiracy-theorists-actively-seek-out-their-online-communities-127119">seek interaction</a> with others holding the same beliefs as them.</p>
<p>If you’re stuck in an echo chamber, Harvard Law School lecturer Erica Ariel Fox <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericaarielfox/2017/10/26/how-to-escape-the-echo-chamber/#53f1f6f14d10">suggests</a> breaking the mould by going out of your way to understand diverse opinions. </p>
<p>Before gearing up to disagree with others, she recommends acknowledging the contradictions and biases you yourself hold, and embracing the opposing sides of yourself.</p>
<p>In tough times, many start to assign blame – often with political or personal agendas.</p>
<p>In the crisis engulfing Australia, we’ve seen this with repeated accusations from conservatives claiming the Greens party <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/is-more-prescribed-burning-the-answer-to-bushfire-threat/11844766">have made fire hazard reduction more difficult</a>.</p>
<p>In such conversations, larger injustices and the underlying political challenges are often forgotten. The structural conditions underpinning the crisis remain unchallenged. </p>
<h2>Slow and steady</h2>
<p>We need <a href="https://insidestory.org.au/slow-burn/">to rethink our approach</a> to dealing with climate change, and <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/global-warming-effects/">its harmful effects</a>.</p>
<p>First, we should acknowledge there is no quick way to resolve the issue, despite the immediacy of the threats it poses. </p>
<p>Political change is slow, and needs steady growth. This is particularly true for climate politics, an issue which <a href="https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199566600.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199566600-e-1">challenges the social and economic structures we rely on</a>.</p>
<p>Our values and aspirations must also change, and be reflected in our online conversations. Our dialogue should shift from blame to a culture of appreciation, and growing concern for the impact of climate degradation. </p>
<p>Users should continue to explore and learn online, but need to do so in an informed way. </p>
<p>Reading Facebook and Twitter content is fine, but this must be complemented with <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/12/05/503581220/fake-or-real-how-to-self-check-the-news-and-get-the-facts">reliable news sources</a>. Follow authorised user accounts providing fact-based articles and guidance. </p>
<p>Before you join an online debate, it’s important you can back your claims. This helps prevent the spread of misinformation online, which is unfortunately rampant.</p>
<p>A <a href="https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2018-02/Measuring%20the%20reach%20of%20fake%20news%20and%20online%20distribution%20in%20Europe%20CORRECT%20FLAG.pdf">2018 Reuters Institute report</a> found people’s interaction (sharing, commenting and reacting) with false news from a small number of Facebook outlets “generated more or as many interactions as established news brands”.</p>
<p>Also, avoid regressive discussions with dead-ends. <a href="https://sproutsocial.com/insights/social-media-algorithms/">Social media algorithms</a> dictate that the posts you engage with set the tone for future posts targeted at you, and more engagement with posts will make them more visible to other users too. Spend your time and effort wisely. </p>
<p>And lastly, the internet has made it easier than ever to contact political leaders, whether it’s <a href="https://twitter.com/ScottMorrisonMP">tweeting at your prime minister</a>, or reaching out to <a href="https://www.facebook.com/SussanLeyMP/">the relevant minister</a> on Facebook.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/listen-to-your-people-scott-morrison-the-bushfires-demand-a-climate-policy-reboot-129348">Listen to your people Scott Morrison: the bushfires demand a climate policy reboot</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Tangible change-making</h2>
<p>History has proven meaningful social and political progress requires sustained public awareness and engagement.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/309178/original/file-20200109-138677-1e9h83o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/309178/original/file-20200109-138677-1e9h83o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/309178/original/file-20200109-138677-1e9h83o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=1300&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/309178/original/file-20200109-138677-1e9h83o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=1300&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/309178/original/file-20200109-138677-1e9h83o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=1300&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/309178/original/file-20200109-138677-1e9h83o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1634&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/309178/original/file-20200109-138677-1e9h83o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1634&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/309178/original/file-20200109-138677-1e9h83o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1634&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Australian comedian Celeste Barber started fundraising with a goal of $30,000.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.facebook.com/donate/1010958179269977/1015653102133818/">Celeste Barber/Facebook</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Consider Australia’s recent legislation on <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-year-that-marriage-equality-finally-came-to-australia">marriage equality</a>, or the historical transformation of <a href="https://history.house.gov/Exhibitions-and-Publications/WIC/Historical-Essays/No-Lady/Womens-Rights/">women’s rights</a>. </p>
<p>These issues affect people constantly, but fixing them required debate over long periods.</p>
<p>We should draw on the awareness raised over the past weeks, and not let dialogue about the heightened threat of bushfires fizzle out. </p>
<p>We must not return to our practices of <a href="http://sourcesofinsight.com/13-negative-motivation-patterns/">do-nothingism</a> as soon as the immediate disaster subsides. </p>
<p>Although bushfire fundraisers have collected millions, a <a href="http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/docs/findings/ESS8_toplines_issue_9_climatechange.pdf">European Social Survey</a> of 44,387 respondents from 23 countries found that – while most participants were worried about climate change – less than one-third were willing to pay higher taxes on fossil fuels.</p>
<p>If we want climate action, we must expect more from our governments but also from ourselves.</p>
<p>Social media should be used to <em>consistently</em> pressure government to take principled stances on key issues, not short-sighted policies geared towards the next election.</p>
<h2>Opening the public’s eyes</h2>
<p>There’s no denying social media has successfully <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/gallery/2020/jan/01/new-years-disaster-full-horror-of-australias-bushfires-begins-to-emerge-in-pictures">driven home the extent of devastation</a> caused by the fires.</p>
<p>A clip from Fire and Rescue NSW, viewed 7.8 million times on Twitter alone, gives audiences a view of what it’s like fighting on the frontlines.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1211943881790509056"}"></div></p>
<p>Images <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/gallery/2020/jan/08/scorched-earth-the-bushfire-devastation-on-kangaroo-island-in-pictures">of burnt, suffering animals</a> and destroyed homes, resorts, farms and forests have signalled the horror of what has passed and what may come.</p>
<p>Social media can be a formidable source of inspiration and action. It’s expected to become even more pervasive in our lives, and this is why <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/3/20980741/fake-news-facebook-twitter-misinformation-lies-fact-check-how-to-internet-guide">it must be used carefully</a>. </p>
<p>While showings of solidarity are incredibly helpful, what happens in the coming weeks and months, after the fires pass, is what will matter most.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/129446/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Emma Hutchison receives funding from the Australian Research Council and from a University of Queensland Foundation Research Excellence Award. These grants are enabling research into the roles emotions play in shaping local and global politics. </span></em></p>Celeste Barber’s $45 million fundraiser is amazing, but battling Australia’s fires should be an ongoing effort. With the help of social media, it can be.Emma Hutchison, Associate Professor and ARC DECRA Fellow, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1192652019-06-21T15:14:56Z2019-06-21T15:14:56ZTo tackle the climate crisis we need more democracy, not less<p>As the climate crisis is increasingly felt across the globe, protesters take to the streets and politicians scrabble to respond, a crucial question is beginning to emerge. How can governments develop climate strategies which build public support for action? An announcement by six UK parliamentary committees that they will hold a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/20/uk-citizens-assembly-on-climate-emergency-announced">citizens’ assembly on the climate emergency</a> is a crucial step toward answering that question.</p>
<p>There are no shortage of prescriptions for climate action. From economists calling for an economy-wide carbon tax, to scientists advocating “earth system governance” at the planetary level, there are experts assuring us that they have strategies to cut greenhouse gas emissions quickly and effectively. But there’s a dangerous illusion sitting behind these prescriptions – what the social scientist Maarten Hajer called the illusion of “<a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/7/2/1651">cockpitism</a>”. Cockpitism describes the assumption that you can dictate climate solutions the same way a pilot might fly a plane, sitting in the cockpit charting the most efficient course, with perfectly calibrated instruments and levers.</p>
<p>This illusion is very problematic – and not just because the climate system is an entity far more complex than a plane. It is problematic because it cuts people out. It is a seemingly apolitical view that self-defined “experts” can decide what is best for people and impose those solutions. At its most extreme, it suggests that democracy is the problem, not the solution – as veteran earth scientist James Lovelock <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock-climate-change">once said</a>, “climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.”</p>
<p><a href="https://www.green-alliance.org.uk/resources/Building_a_political_mandate_for_climate_action.pdf">My own research</a> suggests that the opposite is true. To tackle the climate crisis, we need more, and better, democracy, not less. My interviews with politicians showed that they were convinced of the need for action on climate, but did not know what support there would be from the electorate. As one told me: “I’ve had tens of thousands of conversations with voters, and I just don’t have conversations about climate change.” </p>
<p>But this may be about to change, as we know from polling data that <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/05/greta-thunberg-effect-public-concern-over-environment-reaches-record-high">generalised concern about climate change is now at an all-time high</a>. Yet how does this translate into support for far-reaching climate action? Would people be more likely to support locally based programmes, with powers given to cities and towns to cut emissions? Would there be support for introducing a ban on petrol and diesel vehicles, over the next decade? Would people support higher taxes on carbon, if the money was invested in low-carbon solutions and support for vulnerable households? And crucially, how could this all link together into a credible, effective climate strategy that would build the mandate for further action toward a net-zero carbon target?</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/280754/original/file-20190621-61767-13apf6m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/280754/original/file-20190621-61767-13apf6m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/280754/original/file-20190621-61767-13apf6m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/280754/original/file-20190621-61767-13apf6m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/280754/original/file-20190621-61767-13apf6m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/280754/original/file-20190621-61767-13apf6m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/280754/original/file-20190621-61767-13apf6m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/280754/original/file-20190621-61767-13apf6m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">People say they want climate action. But are they really ready to ban petrol cars?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">daisy / shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This is where processes such as a citizens’ assembly, or other deliberative processes such as citizens’ juries or deliberative workshops, can help. These processes allow a representative group of citizens to meet with experts on equal terms, assess evidence, debate and suggest solutions. They are not a substitute for electoral politics, but they provide a more nuanced and detailed understanding of voters’ viewpoints than traditional political polling or focus groups. </p>
<p>At the recent <a href="https://www.citizensassembly.ie/en/How-the-State-can-make-Ireland-a-leader-in-tackling-climate-change/Final-Report-on-how-the-State-can-make-Ireland-a-leader-in-tackling-climate-change/Climate-Change-Report-Final.pdf">Citizens’ Assembly on climate change</a> held in Ireland, citizens offered up a surprisingly radical and confident set of suggestions, most of which the government is now <a href="https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2019/0617/1055808-climate-action-plan/">taking forward</a>. In the UK, many local areas are now setting up deliberative processes to decide their own next steps on climate.</p>
<p>Done well, such processes can help to develop a more inclusive, less divisive politics, countering the distrust of “experts” and allowing a constant interplay between the views and values of the public and politicians.</p>
<p>A citizens’ assembly is not a panacea. Deliberation won’t, in and of itself, solve the problem. We need far-reaching action which will require radical policy and confrontation of vested interests. But this policy and action will only be achievable if people understand and support it. The more we find out about how to build a public mandate for climate action, and the more we include people in genuine debate and deliberation, the more likely we are to find a way through the climate crisis. If it’s not democratic, it’s not realistic.</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=140&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=140&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=140&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=176&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=176&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=176&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/imagine-newsletter-researchers-think-of-a-world-with-climate-action-113443?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=TCUKengagement&utm_content=Imagineheader1119265">Click here to subscribe to our climate action newsletter. Climate change is inevitable. Our response to it isn’t.</a></em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/119265/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rebecca Willis receives funding from the ESRC. She is affiliated with Green Alliance and the New Economics Foundation. </span></em></p>A citizens’ assembly can help identify what the people want. Because if climate action is not democratic, it’s not realistic.Rebecca Willis, Researcher in Environmental Policy and Politics, Lancaster UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1177522019-06-12T20:16:56Z2019-06-12T20:16:56ZWhy old-school climate denial has had its day<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/276713/original/file-20190528-92765-10ox7aq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">New South Wales, which was 100% drought-declared in August 2018, is already suffering climate impacts. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/157067200@N03/32872663567">Michael Cleary</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Coalition has been re-elected to government, and after six years in office it has <a href="https://www.afr.com/news/politics/australias-greenhouse-gas-emissions-continue-to-rise-20190228-h1bum1">not created any effective policies for reducing greenhouse emissions</a>. Does that mean the Australian climate change debate is stuck in 2013? Not exactly. </p>
<p>While Australia still lacks effective climate change policies, the debate has definitely shifted. It’s particularly noticeable to scientists, like myself, who were very active participants in the Australian climate debate just a few years ago. </p>
<p>The debate has moved away from the basic science, and on to the economic and political ramifications. And if advocates for reducing greenhouse emissions don’t fully recognise this, they risk shooting themselves in the foot.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/276507/original/file-20190527-187157-1ik6hml.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/276507/original/file-20190527-187157-1ik6hml.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/276507/original/file-20190527-187157-1ik6hml.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=430&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/276507/original/file-20190527-187157-1ik6hml.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=430&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/276507/original/file-20190527-187157-1ik6hml.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=430&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/276507/original/file-20190527-187157-1ik6hml.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=541&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/276507/original/file-20190527-187157-1ik6hml.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=541&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/276507/original/file-20190527-187157-1ik6hml.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=541&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Australia’s carbon dioxide emissions are not falling.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Department of Environment and Energy</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The old denials</h2>
<p>Old-school climate change denial, be it denial that warming is taking place or that humans are responsible for that warming, featured prominently in Australian politics a decade ago. In 2009 Tony Abbott, then a Liberal frontbencher jockeying for the party leadership, <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/7.30/tony-abbott-draws-battlelines-for-the-liberal-party/2674932">told ABC’s 7.30 Report</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I am, as you know, hugely unconvinced by the so-called settled science on climate change.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The theory and evidence base for human-induced climate change is vast and growing. In contrast, the counterarguments were so sloppy that there were many targets for scientists to shoot at. </p>
<p>Climate “<a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-sceptic-or-climate-denier-its-not-that-simple-and-heres-why-117913">sceptics</a>” have always been very keen on cherrypicking data. They would make a big fuss about <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/climate-change-deniers-raise-the-heat-on-the-bureau-of-meteorology-20140909-10eedk.html">some unusually cold days, or alleged discrepancies at a handful of weather stations</a>, while ignoring broader trends. They made <a href="https://theconversation.com/no-the-bureau-of-meteorology-is-not-fiddling-its-weather-data-31009">claims of data manipulation</a> that, if true, would entail a global conspiracy, despite the availability of <a href="http://berkeleyearth.org/analysis-code/">code</a> and data. </p>
<p>Incorrect predictions of <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/news/sorry-to-ruin-the-fun-but-an-ice-age-cometh/news-story/e886912c2f02d7a22e0fb9a568e4f4da">imminent global cooling</a> were made on the basis of rudimentary analyses rather than sophisticated models. Cycles were invoked, in a manner reminiscent of epicycles and stock market “<a href="https://www.worldfinance.com/wealth-management/the-myth-of-chartism">chartism</a>” – but doodling with spreadsheets cannot defeat carbon dioxide. </p>
<p>That was the state of climate “scepticism” a decade ago, and frankly that’s where it remains in 2019. It’s old, tired, and increasingly irrelevant as the impact of climate change becomes clearer. </p>
<p>Australians just cannot ignore the <a href="https://theconversation.com/drought-wind-and-heat-when-fire-seasons-start-earlier-and-last-longer-101663">extended bushfire season</a>, <a href="http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/statements/scs70.pdf">drought</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-great-barrier-reef-has-been-bleaching-for-at-least-400-years-but-its-getting-worse-101691">bleached coral reefs</a>. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1131162014733090816"}"></div></p>
<h2>Partisans</h2>
<p>Climate “scepticism” was always underpinned by politics rather than science, and that’s clearer now than it was a decade ago. </p>
<p>Several Australian climate contrarians describe themselves as libertarians - falling to the right of mainstream Australian politics. David Archibald is a climate sceptic, but is now better known as candidate for the <a href="https://www.watoday.com.au/federal-election-2019/fraser-anning-recycles-wa-candidate-who-says-single-mothers-are-lazy-and-ugly-20190425-p51hb3.html">Australian Liberty Alliance, One Nation and (finally) Fraser Anning’s Conservative National Party</a>. The climate change denying Galileo Movement’s <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20190308085928/www.galileomovement.com.au/who_we_are.php">claim to be to be non-partisan</a> was always suspect - and now doubly so with its former project leader, Malcolm Roberts, representing One Nation in the Senate. </p>
<p>Given this, it isn’t surprising that relatively few Australians reject the science of climate change. Just <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/a-record-share-of-australians-say-humans-cause-climate-change-poll-20190328-p518go.html">11%</a> of Australians believe recent global warming is natural, and only <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/a-record-share-of-australians-say-humans-cause-climate-change-poll-20190328-p518go.html">4%</a> believe “there’s no such thing as climate change”.</p>
<p>Old-school climate change denial isn’t just unfounded, it’s also unpopular. Before last month’s federal election, Abbott <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/07/tony-abbott-bet-me-100-the-climate-will-not-change-in-10-years">bet a cafe patron in his electorate A$100 that “the climate will not change in ten years”</a>. It reminded me of similar <a href="https://mashable.com/article/climate-change-science-bet/">bets made and lost over the past decade</a>. We don’t know whether Abbott will end up paying out on the bet – but we do know he lost his seat.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1125647633488465921"}"></div></p>
<h2>The shift</h2>
<p>So what has changed in the years since Abbott was able to gain traction, rather than opprobrium, by disdaining climate science? The Australian still runs Ian Plimer and Maurice Newman on its opinion pages, and Sky News “after dark” often features climate cranks. But prominent politicians rarely repeat their nonsense any more. When the government spins Australia’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/whichever-way-you-spin-it-australias-greenhouse-emissions-have-been-climbing-since-2015-118112">rising emissions</a>, it does it by claiming that investing in natural gas helps cut emissions elsewhere, rather than by pretending CO₂ is merely “plant food”.</p>
<p>As a scientist, I rarely feel the need to debunk the claims of old-school climate cranks. OK, I did recently discuss the weather predictions of a <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/episodes/astrology/11130220">“corporate astrologer” with Media Watch</a>, but that was just bizarre rather than urgent.</p>
<p>Back in the real world, the debate has shifted to costs and jobs.</p>
<p>Modelling by the economist Brian Fisher, who concluded that climate policies would be very expensive, <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/federal-election-2019/new-modelling-to-unleash-explosive-row-over-climate-change-costings-20190501-p51j5e.html">featured prominently in the election campaign</a>. Federal energy minister Angus Taylor, now also responsible for reducing emissions, used the figures to attack the Labor Party, despite expert <a href="https://twitter.com/frankjotzo/status/1107742351139602432">warnings</a> that the modelling used “absurd cost assumptions”.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1123334993185361920"}"></div></p>
<p>Many people still assume the costs of climate change are in the future, despite us increasingly seeing the impacts now. While scientists work to <a href="https://twitter.com/ProfTerryHughes/status/1133172695871320064">quantify the environmental damage</a>, arguments about the costs and benefits of climate policy are the domain of economists.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.smh.com.au/federal-election-2019/don-t-buy-into-the-fake-coal-war-union-calls-on-labor-candidates-to-back-mining-20190411-p51d8g.html">Jobs associated with coal mining</a> were a prominent theme of the election campaign, and may have been decisive in Queensland’s huge anti-Labor swing. It is obvious that burning more coal makes more CO₂, but that fact <a href="https://theconversation.com/not-everyone-cares-about-climate-change-but-reproach-wont-change-their-minds-118255">doesn’t stop people wanting jobs</a>. The new green economy is uncharted territory for many workers with skills and experience in mining.</p>
<p>That said, there are <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-05-23/the-math-on-adani-s-carmichael-coal-mine-doesn-t-add-up">economic arguments against new coalmines</a> and new mines <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-23/macmines-abandons-mining-lease-applications/11138310">may not deliver the number of jobs promised</a>. Australian power companies, unlike government <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/a-new-coal-fired-power-plant-would-cost-3-billion-drive-up-energy-prices-and-take-eight-years-to-build-20180403-p4z7jg.html">backbenchers</a> and <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-28/clive-palmers-waratah-coal-meets-with-queensland-government/11155728">Clive Palmer</a>, have <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/big-power-companies-snub-government-underwriting-for-new-coal-plants-20190311-p513a2.html">little enthusiasm for new coal-fired power stations</a>. But the fact remains that these economic issues are largely outside the domain of scientists.</p>
<p>Debates about climate policy remain heated, despite the scientific basics being widely accepted. Concerns about economic costs and jobs must be addressed, even if those concerns are built on flawed assumptions and promises that may be not kept. We also cannot forget that climate change is already here, <a href="http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/State-of-the-Climate-2018.pdf">impacting agriculture in particular</a>. </p>
<p>Science should inform and underpin arguments, but economics and politics are now the principal battlegrounds in the Australian climate debate.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/117752/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael J. I. Brown receives research funding from the Australian Research Council and Monash University.
</span></em></p>Ten years ago, politicians such as Tony Abbott would routinely voice disdain for climate science. Now, while the policy debate remains fierce, the battleground has shifted to economics and jobs.Michael J. I. Brown, Associate professor in astronomy, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1173182019-05-17T08:08:09Z2019-05-17T08:08:09ZBob Hawke, the environmental PM, bequeathed a huge ‘what if’ on climate change<p>Since the news broke of his passing, Bob Hawke has been <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/may/17/bob-brown-hawke-was-our-environmental-prime-minister">feted as the “environmental prime minister”</a>. From saving the Franklin River, to protecting Antarctica from mining, conservationists have praised his environmental legacy in the same way economists have lauded his financial reforms. </p>
<p>Hawke was in the Lodge during the crucial period when Australia first became aware of – and tried to grapple with – the issue of climate change. And the trajectory of his leadership, not to mention the manner and timing of his political demise, leaves behind a huge question of what might have been.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/vale-bob-hawke-a-giant-of-australian-political-and-industrial-history-93719">Vale Bob Hawke, a giant of Australian political and industrial history</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Hawke had <a href="http://primeministers.naa.gov.au/primeministers/hawke/before-office.aspx">been in the public eye</a> since becoming head of the ACTU (a far more consequential body back then) in the late 1960s.</p>
<p>Famously, he took the leadership of the Australian Labor Party from Bill Hayden on the morning that then Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser called the 1983 election. That election had a major environmental issue: the proposed damming of the Franklin River in Tasmania. </p>
<p>Labor promised to halt the project if elected, and it duly did so, winning the court case later that year. But elsewhere Labor remained reluctant to use its federal environmental powers in a wholesale way. Although there was a <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02240307">National Conservation Strategy</a>, Hawke and his senior ministers remained focused on transforming Australia’s economy, bringing down tariff barriers, floating the dollar, and much else.</p>
<p>There were specific battles over the Wet Tropics, uranium mining, and other “green” issues. But something was coming down the track that would ultimately outstrip them all.</p>
<h2>Climate conundrum</h2>
<p>Barry Jones, Hawke’s science minister from 1983 to 1990, tried in vain to get ministers interested in climate change. Jones mournfully noted in 2008 that he had <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/govt-knew-about-climate-change-in-1984-20080611-2owy.html">raised the alarm in 1984</a>, but his cabinet colleagues did not listen:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The response from my political colleagues in Canberra was distinctly underwhelming. I think some of them were persuaded by (industry) lobbyists to say sooner or later a technological fix will come up.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Political journalist Niki Savva’s memoir, <a href="https://scribepublications.com.au/books-authors/books/so-greek">So Greek</a> (p.136), gives a clue as to the possible reasons behind this:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Bob Hawke couldn’t stand Barry. A few journos, included myself, were talking to Hawke at the back of his VIP aircraft once about his ministers, when one of my colleagues said to him: “Take Barry Jones…” Hawke interrupted and said testily, “No, you take him.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It would take a different, more politically cunning minister in Hawke’s next cabinet (1987-90) to bend his colleagues’ ears towards the climate question. The incoming environment minister, Graham Richardson, realised the electoral importance of green issues - whether the ozone hole, deforestation or sewage – in helping Labor differentiate itself from the Liberals. Meanwhile, Hawke had other advisors who were also fighting the green fight from within, and noisy large environment groups without.</p>
<p>After the <a href="https://www.applied.org.au/news-and-events/article/climate-of-denial">Commission for the Future</a> (a Barry Jones initiative) had launched the Greenhouse Project in 1987, Hawke began to give speeches about the importance of action against the emerging threat of global warming.</p>
<p>In June 1989, Richardson, having proposed a greenhouse emissions target only to see the idea nixed in cabinet by treasurer Paul Keating, noted:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The environment is galloping up the hit parade, and will be top of the pops pretty soon. It’s come from nowhere as an election issue to be Number Two to interest rates.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Hawke’s 1989 statement on the environment (jokingly called the World’s Greatest Environmental Statement) contained little detail on the idea of emissions reductions. Ironically enough, the Liberals went to the March 1990 election with a more ambitious emissions target than Labor.</p>
<p>After winning the 1990 election with Green preferences, the Hawke government established the “Ecologically Sustainable Development” policy process. It featured nine working groups in areas including agriculture, tourism, energy use, and so on, with an overarching “greenhouse” group added later.</p>
<p>However, by 1991, the climate issue was slipping down the charts once more, eclipsed by concerns such as the first Gulf War and the “recession we had to have”. What’s more, Hawke’s relationship with Keating had broken down after he reneged on his promise to stand aside after a third term, and the airwaves were now dominated by political intrigue.</p>
<h2>Rising resistance</h2>
<p>Meanwhile, the business community was growing more organised in its resistance to environmental regulation. After Hawke vetoed a uranium mine in Kakadu National Park in 1991, industry formed the Australian Industry Greenhouse Network (see Guy Pearse’s <a href="https://www.penguin.com.au/books/high-and-dry-9781742284057">High and Dry</a> for the full story) to make sure climate policy didn’t follow the same path.</p>
<p>Hawke stuck to his guns. In October 1991, at a Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Harare, Zimbabwe, he pledged to go to the following year’s Earth Summit in Rio and apply maximum pressure for global action.</p>
<p>Hawke’s days as prime minister, however, were numbered. In December 1991, after a lacklustre parliamentary response to John Hewson’s “Fightback!” policy launch, Keating’s forces moved in for the kill. Hawke’s time as leader had begun and ended with leadership coups – a tactic that has become an <a href="https://theconversation.com/carbon-coups-from-hawke-to-abbott-climate-policy-is-never-far-away-when-leaders-come-a-cropper-47542">even more potent threat</a> in recent years as the climate wars have heated up.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/carbon-coups-from-hawke-to-abbott-climate-policy-is-never-far-away-when-leaders-come-a-cropper-47542">Carbon coups: from Hawke to Abbott, climate policy is never far away when leaders come a cropper</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Keating didn’t go to Rio in 1992, making Australia the only OECD country that didn’t have its top political leader present at the landmark summit.</p>
<p>Australia produced an eye-wateringly weak <a href="https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/23166738?q&versionId=45056770+209323752">National Greenhouse Response Strategy</a> that was not worth the paper it was written on, and was within two years challenged by greens seeking a carbon levy.</p>
<p>There was an effort to get more meaningful domestic policy ahead of the first round of UN climate talks in 1995. But this was defeated by a beefed-up constellation of energy companies, academics and think-tankers, with newspapers and unions helping. Since then, Australian climate policy has been, to put it mildly, inadequate. </p>
<h2>Could it have been different?</h2>
<p>Hawke had a penchant for the grand gesture – from “no Australian child will be living in poverty” to “Australian servicemen not dying overseas” – and this naturally prompts us to ask “what if”? </p>
<p>What if he had been at Rio? What if Australia had invested properly in energy efficiency, solar and other renewables? Of course it’s entirely conceivable that the business community’s response would simply have been even more ferocious, and the environmental movement’s early-1990s malaise all the more pronounced. But it’s not impossible to imagine that Hawke’s forceful determination would have carried the day, as it did on so many others.</p>
<p>There’s been a lot of carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere since Hawke was prime minister, and plenty of hot air pumped into the climate policy debate. But although Hawke fell agonisingly short of finding out who would prevail in 2019, the next prime minister’s climate task is clearer than his, and far more difficult: preparing Australians for inevitable consequences of past policy failures.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/117318/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marc Hudson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>What if Bob Hawke, hailed as a leader who actually ‘got’ environmental issues, had never been rolled by Paul Keating? Perhaps the climate policy wars would have turned out differently.Marc Hudson, Researcher, University of Manchester, University of ManchesterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1089432018-12-17T16:07:12Z2018-12-17T16:07:12ZClimate action must now focus on the global rich and their corporations<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/250967/original/file-20181217-185243-il3avk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Zacarias Pereira da Mata / shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The latest UN climate talks, <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/cop24-62779">known as COP24</a>, have just concluded. The supposed story this time was one of a grinding victory by the EU and developing nations over recalcitrant petro-states – Russia, the US, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. These four, condemned as “<a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/cop24-climate-change-global-warming-us-russia-saudi-arabia-ipcc-report-a8675881.html">climate villains</a>” over the past week, worked to block the adoption of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/global-warming-must-not-exceed-15c-warns-landmark-un-report">a critical IPCC report</a> that detailed how woefully inadequate current international action was for limiting future climate change to 1.5C.</p>
<p>Building on a previous COP in Paris in 2015, this meeting focused on writing the “rulebook” for the <a href="https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/what-is-the-paris-agreement">Paris Agreement</a>, setting out how emissions will be measured, reported and verified. Absent at COP24 was any real discussion of how efforts to cut emissions would be increased, or targets raised from their current low level. This will be discussed at another meeting – another COP – in 2020.</p>
<h2>More magical thinking</h2>
<p>You could be forgiven for thinking this COP (short for <a href="http://www.cop24.katowice.eu">Conference Of the Parties</a> to the UN climate agreements) was no different to any of the previous COPs. As usual, there were a set of villains who were “holding up progress”. There was another scientific report spelling out how little time we have and how bad climate change will be if nothing changes. There was rancorous debate on technicalities, a sideshow debate around carbon markets, and no action on what to actually do. So far, so normal. Throughout its history <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/30/25-years-cop-failures-paris-climate-change-pakistan-binding-agreements">very little has actually been achieved at the COP</a>. </p>
<p>As things stand, we are still heading for <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/03/world-on-track-for-3c-of-warming-under-current-global-climate-pledges-warns-un">3°C or more of global warming</a>. We do not have 12 years to “do something” about it as the IPCC insists. Increasing numbers of commentators, journalists, scientists and environmentalists are breaking ranks from the “<a href="http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/10/un-says-climate-genocide-coming-but-its-worse-than-that.html">hopeful</a>”, to argue that not only is far too little being done too late, but that dangerous climate change is <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/global-warming/science-and-impacts/global-warming-impacts">already here</a>. </p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/hope-from-chaos-could-political-upheaval-lead-to-a-new-green-epoch-90709">Kevin Anderson</a> of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, has consistently criticised IPCC reports for <a href="https://kevinanderson.info/blog/category/articles/">magical thinking</a>, for assuming that at some point in the near future technology will be both invented and rolled out on a mass scale that will suck carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (so-called negative emission technologies). At the moment, there are none that are close to being ready to be mass produced. Take these out of the most recent IPCC report and instead of 12 years to stop dangerous climate change we have just three.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1044008626418044933"}"></div></p>
<p>Given all this, it could be tempting to blame the state of things on the climate villains – who doesn’t want to blame authoritarian or outright fascist government leaders for the world’s problems? But the problem isn’t bad leaders, but the entire system itself. The reality of climate change is that we need a radically different economic and political system if we are to limit future warming and ensure adaptation is fair and just.</p>
<h2>Nation-states wont fix climate change</h2>
<p>The COP reveals the limits of using nation states as the basis for action. Wedded to geopolitical realities and economic competition, states have not changed their behaviour to match the demands of climate science. In many ways it is unrealistic and naive to demand they do so. After all, they are not, as sometimes imagined, ships under the command of a single captain, able to direct the nation one way or another, but rather, complex assemblages where a huge number of actors and interested parties compete for wealth, power, access and influence. </p>
<p>Let’s be clear about what must be demanded of nation states: not some kind of minor adjustment or new zero-cost policy, but the end of economic growth. It would require <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2017/jul/03/paris-climate-deal-wont-work-our-future-depends-degrowth">legislating for de-growth</a>, something that could be considered, after a decade of economic austerity, as electoral suicide.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/250997/original/file-20181217-185234-qmjfbj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/250997/original/file-20181217-185234-qmjfbj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/250997/original/file-20181217-185234-qmjfbj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/250997/original/file-20181217-185234-qmjfbj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/250997/original/file-20181217-185234-qmjfbj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/250997/original/file-20181217-185234-qmjfbj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/250997/original/file-20181217-185234-qmjfbj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/250997/original/file-20181217-185234-qmjfbj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">It may make more sense to go after polluting firms rather than countries.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">bob63 / shutter stock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Legislating for de-growth is the right government policy, but the wrong approach. If the nation state is the wrong climate change actor, then the national economy is also the wrong perpetrator. Yet this is what every plan to combat climate change focuses on: national emissions. But this focus hides massive inequities within national populations and, more importantly, obscures both <a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-targets-are-letting-outsourced-emissions-slip-through-the-cracks-41257">who is responsible for carbon emissions</a> and who has the power to arrest them.</p>
<p>It is really important that we – that is, the vast majority of humanity who will or already are suffering the effects of dangerous climate change – move past “national action plans” and start to take action immediately against two groups largely responsible for climate change. They are the 100 or so corporations <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change">responsible for 71% of global carbon emissions</a> and the wealthiest 10% of the global population <a href="https://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/publications/extreme-carbon-inequality-why-the-paris-climate-deal-must-put-the-poorest-lowes-582545">responsible for 50% of consumption emissions</a>. To put the latter in perspective, if this 10% reduced their consumption to the level of the average European that would produce <a href="https://www.democracynow.org/2018/12/11/scientist_kevin_anderson_worlds_biggest_emitters">a 30% cut in global emissions</a>. </p>
<p>Focusing on the wealthy and their corporations would enable us to bring about an immediate cut in carbon emissions. But it would also form part of a <a href="https://neweconomics.org/2018/11/working-together-for-a-just-transition">just transition</a>, ensuring that the majority of the world’s population do not have to pay for climate policy, a conflict we have already seen on the streets of Paris in recent weeks in the <a href="https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/4156-a-lesson-in-how-not-to-mitigate-climate-change">yellow vests movement</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/gilets-jaunes-why-the-french-working-poor-are-demanding-emmanuel-macrons-resignation-107742">Gilets jaunes: why the French working poor are demanding Emmanuel Macron's resignation</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>As we hurtle into 2019, we need to immediately shift to actions against the ultra-wealthy and the uber-powerful. It is long past time for changing how we talk about climate change. At some point we will need social movements capable of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/06/dont-look-away-now-the-climate-crisis-needs-you">changing everything</a>, but right now we need to relentlessly focus our actions on that small group of people profiting off the destruction of the world, and not wait in vain on governments to do it for us.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/108943/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nicholas Beuret does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The latest UN climate talks were ultimately hindered by their focus on nation-states, obscuring who is actually responsible for emissions.Nicholas Beuret, Lecturer in Environmental Politics, University of EssexLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/967572018-05-21T10:46:09Z2018-05-21T10:46:09ZWhy California’s new rooftop mandate isn’t good enough for some solar power enthusiasts<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/219506/original/file-20180517-26263-etqx3i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Solar panels being installed in new housing under construction in Sacramento, Calif. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/California-Solar-Panels/7cfad931249a4daaa808f0b103a2ff1a/1/0">AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>More <a href="http://www.sacbee.com/latest-news/article210793889.html">California rooftops will soon sport solar panels</a>, partly due to a new state mandate requiring them for all new houses and low-rise residential buildings by 2020.</p>
<p>This rule immediately sparked <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-05-14/california-s-mandate-puts-solar-up-for-grabs">lively debates</a>. Even experts who generally advocate for solar energy expressed <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-09/think-solar-is-upending-california-s-power-grid-now-just-wait">skepticism</a> that it was actually a good idea. </p>
<p>As an <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=TxYfplkAAAAJ&hl=en">environmental economist</a> who studies the design of environmental policies, I believe that doing something about climate change is important, but I don’t consider this new solar mandate to be the best way to achieve that goal. I’m also concerned that it could exacerbate problems with California’s housing market.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"996463514205261825"}"></div></p>
<h2>More than two sides</h2>
<p>You might expect the debate over this policy, which became official when the California Energy Commission <a href="http://www.energy.ca.gov/releases/2018_releases/2018-05-09_building_standards_adopted_nr.html">unanimously voted</a> in favor of it on May 8, to pit two well-defined camps against each other.</p>
<p>Environmentalists who prize fighting climate change might love it due to a presumption that increasing the <a href="https://qz.com/1224296/california-is-taking-a-cooling-off-period-after-generating-too-much-energy-from-the-sun/">share of power California derives</a> from <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-state-of-the-us-solar-industry-5-questions-answered-90578">solar panels</a> will <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints">reduce greenhouse gas emissions</a> by cutting demand for natural gas and coal.</p>
<p>On the other hand, those who <a href="https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/07/16/cap-and-trade-opponent-climate-change-gives-democrats-an-excuse-to-raise-taxes/">question whether the costs of addressing climate change are worth it</a> might hate the solar mandate, since they either see no benefits or think the benefits aren’t worth the costs.</p>
<p>But there are more than two sides.</p>
<h2>Environmental economics 101</h2>
<p>Many renewable energy experts, including economists like me, want governments to do something to address climate change but question the mandate.</p>
<p>University of California, Berkeley economist <a href="http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/borenste/">Severin Borenstein</a> summed up this take in his <a href="https://twitter.com/BorensteinS/status/994242782100271104">open letter</a> to the California Energy Commission opposing the rule. University of California, Davis economist <a href="http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/soapbox/article210886434.html">James Bushnell</a> also <a href="https://energyathaas.wordpress.com/2018/05/14/lessons-in-regulatory-hubris/">opposes the mandate</a> for similar reasons. </p>
<p>Above all, what we economists call “<a href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-24514-5_9">command-and-control policies</a>” like this mandate – inflexible requirements that apply to everyone – often don’t make sense. For example, going solar is less economical in some cases. Even in sunny California, builders can construct housing in shady areas, and not all homeowners use enough electricity for the investment to pay off before they move away. </p>
<p>The mandate does have <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/09/california-approves-plan-to-mandate-solar-panels-on-new-homes.html">some exemptions</a> tied to shade and available roof space, but there could property owners subjected to the requirement to <a href="https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/solar-mandate-all-new-california-homes#gs.Ob8roHI">own or lease solar panels</a> who might consider it unreasonable.</p>
<p>We tend to think that “<a href="https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/economic-incentives">market-based policies</a>” would work better. By relying on incentives instead of requirements, people get to decide for themselves what to do.</p>
<p>Good examples of these policies include a tax on pollution, like <a href="https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/climate-change/planning-and-action/carbon-tax">British Columbia’s carbon tax</a>, or a cap-and-trade market, like the European Union’s <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets_en">Emissions Trading System</a>. Instead of restricting the right to pollute, these approaches make people and businesses pay to pollute, either through taxation or by buying mandatory permits.</p>
<p>The flexibility of market-based policies can make meeting pollution reduction goals cost-effective. When people – or businesses – have to factor the costs of pollution into their decision-making, they have a financial incentive to pollute less and will find ways to do so. By reducing pollution as cheaply as possible, more money is left over to spend on other pressing needs like housing, health care and education.</p>
<p>This advantage is not merely theoretical. By many accounts, market-based policies have successfully worked according to theory, including the U.S. <a href="https://voxeu.org/article/lessons-climate-policy-us-sulphur-dioxide-cap-and-trade-programme">sulfur</a> <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479705002124">dioxide</a> trading program and the EU’s <a href="https://www.edf.org/blog/2015/06/30/europes-emissions-trading-system-turns-10-success-worthy-reflection">carbon trading</a> program. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-captrade-20180111-story.html">California itself has a cap-and-trade market</a>. I believe that expanding and improving it would cut carbon emissions more cost-effectively than the solar mandate would. </p>
<p>Many economists also fear that the mandate will worsen <a href="https://www.npr.org/2018/04/16/601970552/californias-housing-crisis-working-but-on-the-brink-of-homelessness">California’s housing unaffordability</a>. This crisis has many causes, such as <a href="https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.32.1.59">restrictive zoning regulations that curtail construction</a>. But the solar-panel requirement, which could increase the cost of a new home by <a href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Solar-panels-on-homes-soon-could-be-required-in-12894398.php">more than $10,000</a>, probably won’t help, even though supporters of the policy argue that the solar panels will <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44059865">pay for themselves</a> in terms of lower monthly electricity costs.</p>
<p><iframe id="UZieL" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/UZieL/3/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>The solar mandate’s fans</h2>
<p>The solar mandate’s defenders, including Gov. Jerry Brown and Sierra Club leader <a href="https://www.sltrib.com/news/nation-world/2018/05/10/california-becomes-first-state-to-mandate-solar-on-new-homes/">Rachel Golden</a>, make <a href="https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/5/15/17351236/california-rooftop-solar-pv-panels-mandate-energy-experts">several arguments</a> – two of which I find credible.</p>
<p>The first is what I’d call the “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlIUXvAdpcw">Panglossian</a>” argument, after the character in “Candide,” Voltaire’s 18th-century classic satire. In what Voltaire would call “the best of all possible worlds,” <a href="http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/before-the-flood/articles/whats-a-carbon-tax-and-how-does-it-reduce-emissions/">taxing carbon</a> would make perfect sense.</p>
<p>But this is a world riddled with <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421514000901">political obstacles</a> that make enacting almost any climate policy next to impossible. If a big American state can enact an imperfect law like this mandate that might do some good, <a href="https://twitter.com/CostaSamaras/status/994596578252984320">then it should go for it</a>.</p>
<p>The other argument I find reasonable is that by drumming up more demand, the solar mandate will expand the solar panel market – thereby driving solar costs down, perhaps more quickly than a carbon tax would. <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1015519401088">There’s some</a> <a href="https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/gerarden/files/gerarden_jmp.pdf">evidence</a> supporting the theory that these mandates can spur innovation in renewable electricity technologies.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"996494145987358720"}"></div></p>
<p>If the mandate works out, it might address <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800905000303">two issues</a> at once: shrinking California’s carbon footprint and bolstering technological progress in the solar industry.</p>
<p>To be sure, the cost of residential solar panels has plummeted in recent years, although generating solar energy through rooftop panels remains <a href="https://theconversation.com/when-will-rooftop-solar-be-cheaper-than-the-grid-heres-a-map-54789">less cost-effective</a> than power from utility-scale solar farms.</p>
<h2>A practical policy</h2>
<p>After mulling all the various arguments made by these different camps, I don’t think that whether California’s rooftop solar mandate is the perfect policy for the climate or the state’s homebuyers is the question.</p>
<p>The answer to that question is a resounding no – but that is beside the point because no policy is perfect. The key question is whether this policy – given its imperfections and given the difficulty in passing more cost-effective policies – is a winner overall. That question is harder to answer.</p>
<p>Ultimately, I believe the mandate will yield some environmental benefits, though they could be more cost-effectively achieved through other means.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/96757/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Garth Heutel receives funding from the Alliance for Market Solutions. </span></em></p>Environmentalists and climate hawks are cheering, but many experts aren’t excited about the state making rooftop solar panels mandatory on most new homes beginning in 2020.Garth Heutel, Associate Professor of Economics, Georgia State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/942962018-05-15T04:06:37Z2018-05-15T04:06:37ZTo get conservative climate contrarians to really listen, try speaking their language<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/218918/original/file-20180515-100722-geswk1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">People will listen more when they like what they're hearing.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It’s a well-studied fact that facts don’t speak for themselves. This is especially apparent with climate change. Some brilliant studies in the past ten years have shown that people respond to <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pops.12057/full">narratives about climate change</a>, not raw facts. </p>
<p>We also know that politics, not scientific knowledge, shapes people’s view of climate change. Hence <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2459057">deniers are generally politically conservative</a>, regardless of scientific literacy. That means a climate change narrative that appeals to conservative values is a high priority.</p>
<p>The effects of climate change are potentially catastrophic. Currently, a minority of conservative contrarians, including politicians in several countries, have an outsized influence on our lack of action. It makes sense that a big chunk of our campaigning efforts should be targeted at them. </p>
<p>But how many climate change campaigns are specifically targeted at people with a conservative worldview? Given what we know from the research, the answer is roughly none. Environmentalists, policy wonks and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxEGHW6Lbu8">Brian Cox</a> continue to preach to the choir. Yet more facts, lucidly explained, will actually make <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1547">people double down on their pre-existing positions</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/facts-wont-beat-the-climate-deniers-using-their-tactics-will-24074">Facts won't beat the climate deniers – using their tactics will</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Climate change holdouts are not necessarily ill-informed. But they naturally – like everyone else – do not welcome information that conflicts with their worldview. Conservatives are likely to disregard or filter out information that threatens economic growth, standards of living, and business interests. </p>
<p>They’re also likely to be unmoved by messages that emphasise the impact of climate change on the world’s poor. Especially ineffective are morally tinged narratives about how climate change is humanity’s fault and that we’re getting our comeuppance.</p>
<p>It doesn’t matter how accurate any of these narratives are; they won’t work with someone who isn’t open to them. Instead, we need to tailor new climate change narratives that appeal specifically to people with a conservative worldview.</p>
<p>Importantly, although politically targeted, these narratives don’t compromise or warp the science of climate change in any way. They simply emphasise different effects.</p>
<h2>What might these narratives look like?</h2>
<p>The first suggestion is that carbon dioxide emissions could be explained as a disruption to the status quo (of the climate), and thus <a href="https://www-nature-com.ezproxy.library.uq.edu.au/articles/nclimate2943">at odds with conservative values</a>. Climate change is a radical, anarchic experiment with the world’s atmosphere and vital systems. </p>
<p>So, rather than going on with “business as usual”, the sensible thing to do is to stop conducting a foolhardy all-in bet with the world’s water and air. A risk-averse, sane, conservative person should want to adopt the precautionary principle and suspend further greenhouse emissions.</p>
<p>Conservatives are <a href="http://climatescience.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228620-e-384">more likely to respond to positive messages</a> that emphasise agency rather than doom and gloom. <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0002716214559002">Promoting geoengineering</a> or market-based solutions like a carbon tax is a good idea. Even if your own political identity is opposed to these specific solutions, it’s at least worth using them to win conservatives round to the idea that climate change is real.</p>
<p>Third, climate change can be framed as a matter of <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797612449177">impurity rather than harm</a>. Harm to marginalised people and the environment is how many liberal-minded people conceive of climate change. But conservatives think more in terms of purity or sanctity. No worries. The effects of climate change can be no less accurately framed as being a violation of the purity or sanctity of the planet. Instead of harm to ecosystems, it’s a contamination of God’s green Earth.</p>
<p>Finally, we come to a difficult but potentially powerful narrative. It involves turning big industries in general against parts of the energy industry in particular. The more severe effects of climate change threaten the interests of everyone, including those of most large corporations. </p>
<p>We need to compose a narrative about the biggest emitters among fossil fuel companies not pulling their weight, and spoiling things for other industries. It might mobilise traditionally conservative business interests to support action on climate change.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/a-brief-history-of-fossil-fuelled-climate-denial-61273">A brief history of fossil-fuelled climate denial</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Whatever narratives we use, <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2562025">we need to test them</a> to make sure that they are effective. </p>
<h2>Selling the truth</h2>
<p>For some, even the word “narrative” carries connotations of marketing spin, PR, propaganda, or lies. The bitter joke is that as science communicators, armed with mountains of facts, real stakes and endorsements from the best-looking celebrities, we have nonetheless failed to sell the truth. </p>
<p>But it’s not spin if it’s true. All I’m advocating is that we package the facts in a way that will appeal to an audience that has so far remained unmoved. It’s a matter of strategy. </p>
<p>Fossil fuel companies have savvy communications strategies and obvious material incentives to lie. They have donated <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-brief-history-of-fossil-fuelled-climate-denial-61273">millions of dollars to climate denial</a>. </p>
<p>We don’t have to lie about climate change. It’s sadly all too real.</p>
<p>It’s time to play smart and win by engaging conservatives. Climate change shouldn’t be a political issue. But combating it has to take people’s political identities into account. Ignoring this fact is almost as naïve as believing that humans are not changing the climate.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/94296/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jamie Freestone does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Facts will only get you so far when it comes to climate change. To get conservatives on side, climate communicators must focus on the values conservatives hold dear, such as preserving the status quo.Jamie Freestone, PhD student in literature, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/883142017-11-30T03:15:38Z2017-11-30T03:15:38ZIt’s 30 years since scientists first warned of climate threats to Australia<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/196933/original/file-20171129-29160-uqfgoi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Barossa Valley in 1987 – the year that Australians (winemakers included) received their first formal warning of climate change.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Phillip Capper/Wikimedia Commons</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Keen students of climate politics might recognise November 30 as the anniversary of the opening of the historic <a href="https://theconversation.com/beyond-paris-what-was-really-achieved-at-the-cop21-climate-summit-and-what-next-52320">Paris climate summit</a> two years ago. But you might not know that today also marks 30 years since Australian scientists first officially sounded the alarm over climate change, at a conference hailed as the dawn of the ongoing effort to forecast and monitor the future climate of our continent. </p>
<p>November 30, 1987, marked the start of the inaugural <a href="http://www.cawcr.gov.au/projects/Climatechange/impact/policy-relevant-science/conferences/">GREENHOUSE conference</a> hosted by Monash University and attended by 260 delegates. The five-day meeting was convened as part of a new federal government plan in response to the burgeoning global awareness of the impending danger of global warming. </p>
<p>The conference’s convenor, the then CSIRO senior research scientist Graeme Pearman, had approached some 100 researchers in the months leading up to the conference. He gave them a scenario of likely climate change for Australia for the next 30 to 50 years, developed with his CSIRO colleague Barrie Pittock, and asked them to forecast the implications for agriculture, farming and other sectors.</p>
<p>As a result, the conference gave rise to a book called <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ca6uOGYQsHcC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false">Greenhouse: Planning for Climate Change</a>, which outlined rainfall changes, sea-level rise and other physical changes that are now, three decades on, all too familiar. As the contents page reveals, it also tackled impacts on society – everything from insurance to water planning, mosquito-borne diseases, and even ski fields.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/after-bonn-5-things-to-watch-for-in-the-coming-year-of-global-climate-policy-88260">After Bonn, 5 things to watch for in the coming year of global climate policy</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Internationally, awareness of global warming had already been building for a couple of decades, and intensifying for a couple of years. While the ozone hole was hogging global headlines, a United Nations scientific meeting in Villach, Austria, in 1985 had issued a <a href="http://docs.niwa.co.nz/library/public/nzmstic203.pdf">statement</a> warning of the dangers posed by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.</p>
<p>Pearman wasn’t at that meeting, but he was familiar with the problem. As he <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ca6uOGYQsHcC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false">wrote after the 1987 conference</a>, the strength of the Villach statement was “hardly a surprise, as recent evidence had suggested more strongly than ever that climatic change is now probable on timescales of decades”.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, the <a href="http://www.naa.gov.au/collection/explore/cabinet/by-year/1984-85/science.aspx">Commission for the Future</a>, founded by the then federal science minister <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Jones_(Australian_politician)">Barry Jones</a>, was seeking a cause célèbre. The <a href="https://www.science.org.au/">Australian Academy of Science</a> organised a dinner of scientists to suggest possible scientific candidates.</p>
<p>The commission’s chair, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_Adams">Phillip Adams</a>, recalls that problems such as nuclear war, genetic modification, artificial intelligence, were all proposed. Finally, though: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>…the last bloke to talk was right at the far end of the table. Very quiet gentleman… He said, ‘You’re all wrong – it’s the dial in my laboratory, and the laboratories of my colleagues around the world.’ He said, ‘Every day, we see the needle going up, because of what we call the greenhouse effect.‘</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Summit success</h2>
<p>The GREENHOUSE 87 conference was hailed as a great success, creating new scientific networks and momentum. It was what we academics like to call a “<a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13662716.2015.1038098?journalCode=ciai20">field-configuring event</a>”. </p>
<p><a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ojTyqdR2vMEC&pg=PA25&lpg=PA25&dq=New+Scientist+%22the+greenhouse+project%22&source=bl&ots=W7xznqFF2d&sig=YAqvoxBo2-DJSn1BxSMBea2-gdo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjb44iBxsPXAhUBLMAKHeoHDy0Q6AEIODAD#v=onepage&q=New%20Scientist%20%22the%20greenhouse%20project%22&f=false">British magazine New Scientist covered</a> the conference, while the Australian media reported on <a href="http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/122413300?browse=ndp%3Abrowse%2Ftitle%2FC%2Ftitle%2F11%2F1987%2F12%2F01%2Fpage%2F13019270%2Farticle%2F122413300">Jones’s opening speech</a>, the <a href="http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/122413349?searchTerm=Sea-level%20rise%20seen%20as%20threat%20to%20littoral&searchLimits=">problems of sea-level rise</a>, and warnings of <a href="http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/122414542?searchTerm=Scientists%20warn%20of%20floods%2C%20fire%2C%20cyclones%20and%20disease&searchLimits=">floods, fire, cyclones and disease</a></p>
<p>The GREENHOUSE conferences have continued ever since. After a sporadic first couple of decades, the meetings have been held biennally around the country since 2005; the latest was in <a href="http://www.cawcr.gov.au/projects/Climatechange/impact/policy-relevant-science/conferences/">Hobart in 2015</a>, as there wasn’t a 2017 edition.</p>
<h2>What happened next?</h2>
<p>The Greenhouse Project helped to spark and channel huge public interest in and concern about climate change in the late 1980s. But politicians fumbled their response, producing a weak National Greenhouse Response Strategy in 1992. </p>
<p>The Commission for the Future was privatised, the federal government declined to fund a follow-up to the Greenhouse Project, and a new campaign group called Greenhouse Action Australia could not sustain itself. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, the scientists kept doing what scientists do: observing, measuring, communicating, refining. Pittock produced many more books and articles. Pearman spoke to Paul Keating’s cabinet in 1994 while it briefly pondered the introduction of a carbon tax. He retired in 2004, having been reprimanded and asked to resign, ironically enough for <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/scientists-bitter-over-interference/2006/02/12/1139679479548.html">speaking out about climate change</a>.</p>
<p>As I’ve <a href="https://theconversation.com/march-for-science-after-decades-of-climate-attacks-its-high-time-76041">written previously on The Conversation</a>, Australian policymakers have been well served by scientists, but have sadly taken little real notice. And lest all the blame be put onto the Coalition, let’s remember that one chief scientific adviser, Penny Sackett, <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/gillard-never-met-chief-scientific-adviser-penny-sackett-before-she-quit/news-story/01d7037b66ae816d3e825db5efffe9cc">quit mid-term</a> in 2011, when Labor was in government. She has never said exactly why, but barely met Kevin Rudd and never met his successor Julia Gillard.</p>
<p>Our problem is not the scientists. It’s not the science. It’s the politics. And it’s not (just) the politicians, it’s the ability (or inability) of citizens’ groups to put the policymakers under sustained and irresistible pressure, to create the new institutions we need for the “<a href="http://sei-us.org/Publications_PDF/SEI-Science-LoomingGlobalScaleFailures-09.pdf">looming global-scale failures</a>” we face.</p>
<h2>A South Australian coda</h2>
<p>While researching this article, I stumbled across the following fact. Fourteen years and a day before the Greenhouse 87 conference had begun, <a href="http://biography.senate.gov.au/jessop-donald-scott/">Don Jessop</a>, a Liberal senator for South Australia, made <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22hansard80%2Fhansards80%2F1973-11-29%2F0155%22">this statement</a> in parliament:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>It is quite apparent to world scientists that the silent pollutant, carbon dioxide, is increasing in the atmosphere and will cause us great concern in the future. Other pollutants from conventional fuels are proliferating other gases in the atmosphere, not the least of these being the sulphurous gases which will be causing emphysema and other such health problems if we persist with this type of energy source. Of course, I am putting a case for solar energy. Australia is a country that can well look forward to a very prosperous future if it concentrates on solar energy right now.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>That was 44 years ago. No one can say we haven’t been warned.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/88314/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marc Hudson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Three decades since the GREENHOUSE 87 conference, credited as kickstarting public awareness of climate change in Australia, how far have we come, and how far do we have left to go in appreciating the risks?Marc Hudson, PhD Candidate, Sustainable Consumption Institute, University of ManchesterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/865602017-11-06T05:39:12Z2017-11-06T05:39:12ZFive things that should happen at the Bonn climate talks but probably won’t<p>The world’s leaders are meeting – again – for talks on climate change. This year’s <a href="http://newsroom.unfccc.int/cop-23-bonn/">Conference of the Parties</a> (the 23rd, hence COP23) to the United Nations climate treaty in Bonn, Germany, is not expected to be a deal-clinching, make-or-break one like Paris in 2015 or Copenhagen in 2009.</p>
<p>That doesn’t make it insignificant – the hope is that negotiators will make meaningful progress on implementing the provisions of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/five-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-paris-climate-deal-52256">2015 Paris Agreement</a>.</p>
<p>Countries have agreed that they want a whole range of operational rules, deliberately left vague in Paris, to be agreed by the 2018 COP in Katowice, Poland. These include <a href="https://theconversation.com/ipcc-report-adapt-to-cope-with-climate-change-25037">rules over financing for climate adaptation</a> in developing countries, and for a new market mechanism to help implementation of the agreement, among others.</p>
<p>Climate negotiations typically involve several years of glacial progress followed by a flurry of extraordinary spectacle, involving negotiators staying up for two days straight to get a deal done. This dynamic is exhausting, and usually produces distinctly underwhelming results announced with great fanfare, along with the launch of yet another a new initiative or network. It all invites a weary cynicism about what we expect the UN process to achieve.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192869/original/file-20171101-19883-ujmbpk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192869/original/file-20171101-19883-ujmbpk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192869/original/file-20171101-19883-ujmbpk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192869/original/file-20171101-19883-ujmbpk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192869/original/file-20171101-19883-ujmbpk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192869/original/file-20171101-19883-ujmbpk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192869/original/file-20171101-19883-ujmbpk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192869/original/file-20171101-19883-ujmbpk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Thumbs up for fanfare.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/cop21/23078908873/in/album-72157661744003510/">Benjamin Géminel / COP Paris</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But if the Paris Agreement is to be anything other than a farce, it must avoid the sort of design which needs heroic politicians parachuting in once every five years. Rather, it needs countries to pay attention, to continue working patiently, revising and improving their strategies to “bend the curve” on emissions and deal with the mess that climate change is already causing.</p>
<p>Here then are five things that should happen:</p>
<h2>1. Enough with the oil, coal and gas already</h2>
<p>Parties – nearly 200 countries plus the EU – could explicitly recognise that the “<a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/iea-world-can-reach-net-zero-emissions-by-2060-meet-paris-climate-goals">net-zero</a>” emissions goal in the Paris Agreement means the end of fossil fuels. </p>
<p>What would that mean in practice? They’d make substantive policy announcements with serious effects, like eliminating fossil fuel subsidies – which even the <a href="https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2016/12/31/How-Large-Are-Global-Energy-Subsidies-42940">IMF</a> thinks are out of hand – or a coal phase-out by 2025. They’d also begin to think through how to arrange serious funding for renewables, the electrification of motorised transport and a ramping up of “technology transfer”.</p>
<h2>2. Sharpen the teeth of the pledges</h2>
<p>Parties could agree that their commitments to cut emissions, known as “nationally determined contributions” (NDCs), <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-ensure-governments-stick-to-their-paris-climate-commitments-50354">are inadequate</a> and announce revised and more aggressive ones.</p>
<p>It was clear from the outset that these emissions cuts, taken together, would still see the world shoot past the <a href="http://climatescience.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228620-e-15">2°C target</a>, let alone a 1.5°C one. Collectively, they could agree to accelerate the process of reviewing these commitments but to trigger this, countries seeking to lead would need to do this unilaterally.</p>
<h2>3. Show us the money</h2>
<p>Industrialised countries could announce new investments in the <a href="http://www.greenclimate.fund/home">Green Climate Fund</a>. There are lots of fine words about this fund, but richer nations have not put their money where their mouths are. It was supposed to be raising US$100 billion a year by 2020, but countries have so far put in just over <a href="https://www.greenclimate.fund/documents/20182/24868/Status_of_Pledges.pdf/eef538d3-2987-4659-8c7c-5566ed6afd19">US$10 billion in total</a> (and that includes US$3 billion from the US, whose status is now threatened by US president, Donald Trump). </p>
<p>This is hopelessly inadequate in the face of the need to both finance zero-carbon development in developing countries and help those already facing “loss and damage” from climate change. New and substantial cheques and means to simulate private financing of low-carbon development are needed.</p>
<h2>4. Clarify the rules</h2>
<p>Parties could agree on certain rules a year ahead of schedule. Last year, at COP22 in Marrakech, it was decided those rules that had been left vague needed to be <a href="http://www.climatefocus.com/sites/default/files/pw.20170117%20COP22%20Marrakech_Briefing%20v%201.0%20FIN.pdf">agreed on by 2018</a>, in order to help the first stocktake of progress in implementing the agreement. </p>
<p>These things tend to take a long time. Take the example of the market mechanism, for instance (article 6 of the agreement). After they were introduced in the Kyoto protocol of 1997 it took a further four years for everyone to agree on their operational rules.</p>
<p>This is all too slow. Now we have those earlier models to draw on, quicker progress would be a sign they are getting on with things.</p>
<h2>5. Fantasy technologies are exposed as delusions</h2>
<p>Parties could explicitly accept that “negative emissions” technologies are no substitute for aiming for zero emissions. </p>
<p>The idea of “net-zero” emissions – and many of the IPCC’s scenarios – increasingly rely on weird and wonderful technologies to take carbon out of the atmosphere. The latest of these is <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/beccs-the-story-of-climate-changes-saviour-technology">Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage</a>: you grow plants, which absorb CO₂, then burn them in power stations to generate electricity, capture the emitted carbon and store it underground. The trouble is, no-one knows if it can really work – but, at the same time, many are using this as a sort of <a href="http://www.nature.com.proxy.bib.uottawa.ca/news/emissions-reduction-scrutinize-co2-removal-methods-1.19318">magical escape clause</a> to avoid the end of fossil fuels (see 1 above). A recognition that this is wishful thinking would be useful.</p>
<p>All five of the above are pretty unlikely. The chances are that negotiations will continue along the path of nothing happening until the last minute (if then).</p>
<p>But here’s one that will almost certainly happen, but will be largely meaningless. The <a href="http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/climate-action-leadership-network-launched-in-new-york/">Climate Action Leadership Network</a>, already announced at the UN Climate week in September will be fully launched, as the latest in a set of such efforts to keep up the semblance of momentum in the negotiations.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, renewable energy technology will drop in price independently of all the fine words, and atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide will <a href="https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/greenhouse-gas-concentrations-surge-new-record">continue to grow</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/86560/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matthew Paterson receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (Canada). </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marc Hudson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>And one thing that probably will, but won’t make much difference.Matthew Paterson, Professor of International Politics, University of ManchesterMarc Hudson, PhD Candidate, Sustainable Consumption Institute, University of ManchesterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/849692017-10-09T03:28:01Z2017-10-09T03:28:01ZTony Abbott, once the ‘climate weathervane’, has long since rusted stuck<p>Tonight former Prime Minister Tony Abbott will be in London to give a speech to the Global Warming Policy Foundation, titled “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/sep/02/daring-to-doubt-tony-abbott-to-address-london-climate-sceptic-group">Daring to Doubt</a>”, in which he will <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/betweenthelines/tony-abbott/9016116">reportedly argue</a> that climate policy is “shutting down industries”. (It’s not clear if he’s bought <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3_CYdYDDpk">carbon offsets</a> for the 10 tonnes of carbon that a return flight to the UK will release into the atmosphere.) </p>
<p>Whatever talking points and soundbites he presents will inevitably be interpreted as yet another salvo in the Coalition’s ferocious and interminable war over energy and climate policy.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/two-new-books-show-theres-still-no-goodbye-to-messy-climate-politics-80957">Two new books show there's still no goodbye to messy climate politics</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The venue is the same one where Abbott’s mentor John Howard <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/06/election-ploy-john-howard-climate">U-turned on his earlier climate policy U-turn</a>. In a 2013 speech, Howard disparagingly declared that “<a href="http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2013/12/Howard-2013-Annual-GWPF-Lecture.pdf">one religion is enough</a>”, despite having belatedly pledged in 2006 to introduce an emissions trading scheme, only to lose to Kevin Rudd the following year.</p>
<h2>Who are the GWPF anyway?</h2>
<p>The Global Warming Policy Foundation was set up in 2009 by Nigel Lawson, who in the 1980s served as Chancellor of the Exchequer (the UK equivalent of treasurer) in Margaret Thatcher’s government, but is arguably more famous these days as Nigella’s dad. </p>
<p>The foundation was founded just days after the first so-called “Climategate” emails were leaked. But after <a href="http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/75857/">complaints</a>, in 2014 the UK Charity Commission <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-global-warming-policy-foundation-case-report">rejected the notion</a> that the organisation provides an educational resource, concluding that: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The [GWPF] website could not be regarded as a comprehensive and structured educational resource sufficient to demonstrate public benefit. In areas of controversy, education requires balance and neutrality with sufficient weight given to competing arguments.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Ahead of the Commission’s report, the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/09/nigel-lawson-climate-sceptic-thinktank">Global Warming Policy Forum was born</a> as the organisation’s campaigning arm, free from the regulations that govern charities. </p>
<p>Despite its loud demands for crystal-clear transparency about climate science, and its repeated claims that scientists are swayed by big fat grants, the GWPF is oddly cagey about its own funding. In a <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01nl8gm">2012 BBC Radio programme</a>, Lawson said he relied on friends who “tend to be richer than the average person and much more intelligent than the average person”. An <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-policy-foundation">investigation by the website DeSmog</a> has dug up some more information.</p>
<p>More recently the GWP Forum has been in the news because it appointed a <a href="https://www.desmog.uk/2017/08/07/oil-company-boss-and-major-tory-brexit-donor-named-director-climate-science-denying-gwpf">pro-Brexit oil company boss to its board</a> and because in August Lawson appeared on BBC Radio to attack Al Gore, accusing the Nobel prizewinning climate activist of peddling “the same old claptrap” and adding: “People often fail to change and he says he hasn’t changed, he’s like the man who goes around saying ‘the end of the world is nigh’ with a big placard”.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/a-brief-history-of-al-gores-climate-missions-to-australia-81023">A brief history of Al Gore's climate missions to Australia</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Lawson wasn’t done. He also claimed that “according to the official figures, during this past 10 years, if anything, mean global temperature, average world temperature, has slightly declined”.</p>
<p>Factcheckers were <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-lord-lawson-inaccurate-claims-about-climate-change-bbc-radio-four">quick off the mark</a>, and the BBC was <a href="http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2017-08-10/radio-4-labelled-ignorant-and-irresponsible-for-giving-airtime-to-climate-change-sceptic-lord-lawson/">chided by, among others, Professor Brian Cox</a> (a year on from <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/video/2016/aug/16/i-brought-the-graph-brian-cox-and-malcolm-roberts-debate-climate-change-on-qa-video">bringing his graph to Q&A</a> to try to educate the British-Australian politician Malcolm Roberts).</p>
<p><a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nigel-lawson-climate-change-sceptics-global-temperatures-fall-false-claim-warming-gwpf-bbc-radio-4-a7894686.html">Days later Lawson admitted</a> that his figures were not from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but from a meteorologist who works for the Cato Institute, a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/17/dark-money-review-nazi-oil-the-koch-brothers-and-a-rightwing-revolution">libertarian think tank founded by Charles Koch</a>.</p>
<h2>Abbott the weathervane</h2>
<p>Anyway, back to Abbott. Digging around in the archives throws up some amusing surprises about him, as befits a man who has been <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/50th-birthday/a-tyro-makes-his-mark/story-fnlk0fie-1226899809752">making headline since 1977</a>. In 1994 an environmental campaign to recreate Tasmania’s Lake Pedder found an unusual ally in the newly minted Member for Warringah, who wrote an article in The Australian that plaintively asked:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>If we can renovate old houses and old cars, rejuvenate works of art, recreate forgotten languages and restore degraded bushland, why can’t we rehabilitate the site of a redundant dam?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Abbott seems not to have been particularly exercised by climate policy during the first decade of his parliamentary career. But once the issue hit the top of the political agenda, Abbott was – in his own words to Malcolm Turnbull – “a bit of a weathervane”. </p>
<p>He helped convince Howard to agree to some sort of ETS proposal during the ultimately futile bid to fend off Kevin Rudd in 2007. In July 2009, in a front-page story in The Australian headed “Abbott – we have to vote for ETS”, he was quoted as saying: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The [Rudd] government’s emissions trading scheme is the perfect political response to the public’s fears. It’s a plausible means to limit carbon emissions that doesn’t impose any obvious costs on voters.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>However, by September 2009, with Malcolm Turnbull’s leadership on the rocks (remember <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utegate">Godwin Grech</a>?), Abbott made a fateful trip to Beaufort in rural Victoria, and discovered that the room loved him saying “climate change is <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/politics/the-town-that-turned-up-the-temperature/news-story/6fe0d32a32e42341a12b999f6da82ec5">absolute crap</a>”. The weathervane had made an abrupt about-face.</p>
<p>As Paul Kelly notes in his 2014 opus <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumph_%26_Demise:_The_Broken_Promise_of_a_Labor_Generation">Triumph and Demise</a>, then-Senator Nick Minchin was crucial in convincing Abbott that there was no serious electoral price to be paid in opposing Kevin Rudd’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.</p>
<p>Turnbull was on the ropes, and Abbott won the leadership ballot by one vote. As David Marr <a href="https://www.blackincbooks.com.au/books/political-animal">recounts</a>, the party was almost as stunned as the nation. “God Almighty,” one of the Liberals cried in the party room that day. “What have we done?”</p>
<p>The ensuing years need no extended <a href="https://theconversation.com/ten-years-of-backflips-over-emissions-trading-leave-climate-policy-in-the-lurch-69641">recap</a>, though two points are worth mentioning. The first is the admission by Abbott’s former chief of staff Peta Credlin that the “carbon tax” that was going to be the end of the world… <a href="http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/02/12/carbon-tax-just-brutal-politics-credlin">wasn’t a carbon tax</a>. </p>
<p>The second is that former environment minister <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/24/liberal-mps-didnt-stand-in-abbotts-way-on-renewables-target-greg-hunt-says">Greg Hunt recently rebutted</a> the claim that backbenchers prevented further cuts to the Renewable Energy Target under Abbott’s prime ministership.</p>
<h2>Backed into a corner</h2>
<p>The upshot is that Abbott has, as <a href="http://www.afr.com/news/politics/national/tony-abbott-prepared-to-change-on-all-but-a-few-principles-20170922-gymlj4">Philip Coorey recently observed</a>, totally painted himself into a corner on energy and renewables. </p>
<p>Mind you, it may not matter that much to him, given that his apparent aim is not to “do a Rudd” and return to the helm, but simply to drive a wrecking ball through Malcolm Turnbull’s prime ministership – with climate and energy policy as collateral damage. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/coal-and-the-coalition-the-policy-knot-that-still-wont-untie-83565">Coal and the Coalition: the policy knot that still won't untie</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>As Abbott accepts another pat on the back from a roomful of climate deniers in London, we may wonder how long business interests in Australia will tolerate his wrecking, undermining and sniping. There is bewilderment and dismay at the destabilising effect on policy. </p>
<p>Among the business lobby, <a href="http://reneweconomy.com.au/whats-next-minerals-councils-coal-climate-policy-18763/">BHP has evidently forced the departure of Brendan Pearson as head of the Minerals Council</a> in protest at the council’s similarly backward stance. That much is within their gift. But with regard to the Coalition government, those businesses can do little but despair at the handful of recalcitrant MPs who have nominated climate policy as the ditch in which they will die, in service of the culture war.</p>
<p>The hot air just doesn’t seem to be letting up, any more than our <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-reality-of-living-with-50-temperatures-in-our-major-cities-85315">hot summers</a> will in the future.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/84969/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Tony Abbott will deliver a speech to the Global Warming Policy Foundation. Has the human weathervane stopped spinning? What does it mean for climate politics?Marc Hudson, PhD Candidate, Sustainable Consumption Institute, University of ManchesterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/806632017-08-14T02:34:28Z2017-08-14T02:34:28ZRed team-blue team? Debating climate science should not be a cage match<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/181833/original/file-20170811-14040-1uy41uu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Having an antagonistic debate over climate change will not shed any more light on the fundamentals of climate science. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Ivica Drusany/Shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Scott Pruitt, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, <a href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060056858">has called for</a> a “red team-blue team” review to challenge the science behind climate change. “The American people deserve an honest, open, transparent discussion about this supposed threat to this country,” he <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/345937-epa-head-casts-doubt-on-supposed-threat-from-climate-change">said on a radio show</a>, adding he hoped to hold the exercise in the fall. </p>
<p>Most commonly, red team-blue team reviews are used as a <a href="http://www.csoonline.com/article/2122440/disaster-recovery/emergency-preparedness-red-team-versus-blue-team-how-to-run-an-effective-simulation.html">mechanism to improve security</a> of information systems or military defenses. The blue team is associated with an institution, the owner of an asset or a plan. The red team is charged with attacking the blue team, with the goal of revealing vulnerabilities. </p>
<p>I have participated in red team-blue team exercises and in many reviews that share characteristics with their philosophy. Whether the review is cast as a hostile intruder, a devil’s advocate or scenario planning, there is always the spirit of challenge by an antagonist. </p>
<p>This can take many forms. As a climate researcher, I have participated in reviews where weather and climate projects were investigated for budget reductions. Others examined the role of high-risk research and technology along the critical path of a project. I have participated in studies of management acumen and how projects fit into a national and international political and scientific context.</p>
<p>I have also participated in forums of scientific debate. This is where scientists provided evidence supporting competing arguments to explain unresolved observed behaviors. The arguments were testable, hence, scientific hypotheses. </p>
<p>From my experience in both types of review, I can say confidently that red team-blue team exercises are not a mechanism for scientific debate. They are not designed to take a testable hypothesis and then look at whether observations and theory support or refute it. They are more like <a href="http://batman.wikia.com/wiki/The_Joker_(Heath_Ledger)">Heath Ledger’s Joker in The Dark Knight</a>, causing disruption, distortion and chaos. </p>
<p>And so, Pruitt’s call for a red team-blue team review is not designed to test the scientific robustness of our knowledge of climate change. Rather, it is part of the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-rolling-back-obama-rules/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.aeec51a7f253">political strategy</a> to continue the dissolution of the EPA’s climate change activities and to destroy President Obama’s efforts to address climate change – something Pruitt and the Trump administration have made their <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/us/politics/trump-epa-chief-pruitt-regulations-climate-change.html">stated goal</a>. </p>
<h2>Scientific reviews of climate science</h2>
<p>Administrator Pruitt’s call for a red team-blue team review has been discussed by a number of other scientists. In a Washington Post <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2017/06/21/attention-scott-pruitt-red-teams-and-blue-teams-are-no-way-to-conduct-climate-science/">commentary</a>, Ben Santer, Kerry Emanuel and Naomi Oreskes discuss peer review and its checks and balances. Former Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy <a href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2017/07/24/the-perversity-red-teaming-climate-science/VkT05883ajZaTPMbrP3wpJ/story.html">John Holdren, in the Boston Globe</a>, takes on the political nature of Pruitt’s position and documents the extensive reviews of climate change science by many organizations.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/181606/original/file-20170809-13168-1n6r722.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/181606/original/file-20170809-13168-1n6r722.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/181606/original/file-20170809-13168-1n6r722.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=976&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/181606/original/file-20170809-13168-1n6r722.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=976&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/181606/original/file-20170809-13168-1n6r722.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=976&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/181606/original/file-20170809-13168-1n6r722.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1226&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/181606/original/file-20170809-13168-1n6r722.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1226&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/181606/original/file-20170809-13168-1n6r722.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1226&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In addition to ongoing scientific reviews of climate science going back decades, there have been extensive political and policy challenges, as this 1995 House hearing document shows.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://archive.org/stream/scientificintegr111695unit#page/n1/mode/2up">U.S. government</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>These many reviews of climate change science are motivated by the consequences of climate change. The disruptions to the world are enormous and costly. To intervene and limit those disruptions requires changes in how we use energy, and essentially, the elimination of fossil fuel emissions. For decades it has been in the best interest of our prosperity and environmental security to get the answer on climate science right. Hence, reviews have been carried on from many perspectives.</p>
<p>Indeed, law professor Daniel Farber has reviewed the practice of climate science and <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1030607">concluded</a>, “Climate scientists have created a unique institutional system for assessing and improving models, going well beyond the usual system of peer review. Consequently, their conclusions should be entitled to considerable credence by courts and agencies.”</p>
<p>Farber not only cites the <a href="http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_16">attributes of peer review</a>, but also the extensive community efforts to compare and improve the computer models scientists use to project future climate change. Further, the review process of the <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/">Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change</a> contributes to the robustness of the basic conclusions that the Earth’s surface air temperature will warm, ice will melt, sea level will rise and the weather will change.</p>
<p>So the scientific investigation of the Earth’s climate does not suffer from a lack of scrutiny.</p>
<h2>Political challenges to climate science</h2>
<p>In addition, climate change science has been the target of political and public debate for decades. In 1995 the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science <a href="https://archive.org/stream/scientificintegr111695unit/scientificintegr111695unitdjvu.txt">held hearings on the integrity of climate models</a>. The results of those hearings persist today in the political and societal discourse, and there have been many subsequent political hearings. </p>
<p>The political and public attacks on climate science have led to reactionary research. This research has served to strengthen the foundation of climate science. On the other hand, no findings have seriously challenged that foundation. Therefore, resources have been spent, and we have delayed action on climate change to check the dots on the i’s. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/181826/original/file-20170811-21897-900bgs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/181826/original/file-20170811-21897-900bgs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=817&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/181826/original/file-20170811-21897-900bgs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=817&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/181826/original/file-20170811-21897-900bgs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=817&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/181826/original/file-20170811-21897-900bgs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1027&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/181826/original/file-20170811-21897-900bgs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1027&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/181826/original/file-20170811-21897-900bgs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1027&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Steve Koonin, a former undersecretary of energy under Obama and NYU professor, has said it’s worth a red team-style debate to argue if climate change is the ‘greatest catastrophe that’s facing the planet or this is a nothing burger.’</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://cusp.nyu.edu/people/steve-koonin/">New York University</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Administrator Pruitt’s call for the red team-blue team review seems inspired by a <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-red-team-exercise-would-strengthen-climate-science-1492728579">Wall Street Journal commentary</a> by physicist and New York University professor <a href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060058443">Steven Koonin</a>, who called for an adversarial, public red team-blue team review of climate science. Koonin maintained that such a review would be a step toward “evidence-based policymaking and against the politicization of science.” A goal would be to “Put the ‘consensus’ to a test, and improve public understanding, through an open and adversarial process.”</p>
<p>In my view, however, the “consensus” argument to support the correctness and the reliability of climate change is poorly posed. It is an argument based on polls that maintain that an <a href="https://theconversation.com/its-true-97-of-research-papers-say-climate-change-is-happening-14051">overwhelming majority of climate scientists</a> have accepted the basic conclusions of a warming climate. The consensus argument likely emerged as a tactic for communication, but it is not a prudent tactic. It sets up a choice: Whose side are you on? Who or what do you believe?</p>
<p>More fundamentally, the consensus argument is not an argument of climate science; it’s one of communication or political science. Hence, putting “consensus” to the test is not accomplished by an adversarial review of climate science. An adversarial review of climate science, especially one motivated by a hostile political appointee, serves only to escalate the politicization of climate science and undermine evidence-based policy making. </p>
<h2>Been here before</h2>
<p>At the beginning of the Bush-Cheney administration in 2001, the White House asked a committee of the National Academy of the Sciences for a short-fuse, less-than-one-month <a href="https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/ceq/global-change.html">evaluation of the key uncertainties of climate science</a> as well as an analysis of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change summary reports. The committee included <a href="http://climate-science.mit.edu/news/featured-stories/mit-faculty-working-on-climate-write-to-president-trump">professor Richard Lindzen</a>, frequently cited as a climate change skeptic in the public media. </p>
<p>The committee stated in <a href="https://www.nap.edu/read/10139/chapter/2">their conclusion</a>, “The committee generally agrees with the assessment of human-caused climate change presented in the IPCC Working Group I scientific report, but seeks here to articulate more clearly the level of confidence that can be ascribed to those assessments and the caveats that need to be attached to them.”</p>
<p>During the 1990s there were many reviews of climate science and proposed climate programs. As one example, JASON Reviews were an especially interesting form of review. I made presentations at these reviews. Professor Koonin <a href="http://www.csm.ornl.gov/chammp/news/news.aug.98">took part</a> in these reviews as well.</p>
<p>According to the <a href="https://fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/">Federation of American Science</a>, “JASON is an independent scientific advisory group that provides consulting services to the U.S. government on matters of defense science and technology. It was established in 1960.” JASON was formed originally by scientists, mostly physicists, associated with the World War II Manhattan Project. They have been used to review climate science several times, and their membership has included those counted as climate skeptics, for example, <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/letters-to-a-heretic-an-email-conversation-with-climate-change-sceptic-professor-freeman-dyson-2224912.html">Freeman Dyson</a>. </p>
<p>The JASON review has some elements of a red team review - an independent team of highly trained and accomplished scientists examines proposed and existing research programs. </p>
<p>I never saw any indication of the JASON panel questioning the underlying tenets of climate science or the methodology of climate scientists. </p>
<h2>What Pruitt’s review is really about</h2>
<p>Given the many instances of scientific, political and policy reviews over decades, one cannot legitimately argue that an adversarial-style process will shed light on core climate science. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/jWQCqlD5JuI?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has cast doubt on the role people have in global warming, contradicting the findings of thousands of specialized scientists over decades.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Instead, what Pruitt has proposed has all of the characteristics of formalizing as behavior, if not policy, a federal disruption of climate policy. </p>
<p>His tactic can be viewed only as spectacle to advance a political agenda. Such spectacle will be based on emotional appeal and will rely on manipulating the message about the role that uncertainty plays in scientific investigation. The goal will be the <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1075547016677043">amplification and persistence of public doubt</a> – a goal that would be undoubtedly achieved.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/80663/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Richard B Rood receives funding from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Park Service. He is affiliated with the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society and he writes for its ClimatePolicy.org blog. </span></em></p>Why assembling two teams to debate climate change is all about political spectacle and sowing doubt – and has nothing to do with actual climate science.Richard B. (Ricky) Rood, Professor of Climate and Space Sciences and Engineering, University of MichiganLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/809572017-07-18T23:56:30Z2017-07-18T23:56:30ZTwo new books show there’s still no goodbye to messy climate politics<p>As <a href="https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/">atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations rise</a>, so too does the number of books telling us what the consequences are, and what we can do. Two more have been released in the past few weeks – Anna Krien’s brilliant Quarterly Essay <a href="https://www.quarterlyessay.com.au/essay/2017/06/the-long-goodbye/extract">The Long Goodbye: Coal, Coral and Australia’s Climate Deadlock</a>, and the worthy <a href="https://www.mup.com.au/books/9780522871685-climate-wars">Climate Wars</a> by Labor’s shadow environment minister Mark Butler. Both deserve a wide audience.</p>
<p>Krien, author of <a href="https://www.blackincbooks.com.au/books/woods">Into the Woods: The Battle for Tasmania’s Forests</a> has a sharp eye for the right anecdote and a brilliant turn of phrase. Her reportage can be spoken of in the same breath as Elizabeth Kolbert’s seminal <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/2007/aug/12/scienceandnature.features">Field Notes from a Catastrophe</a>. She has read extensively (I for one was not familiar with the <a href="http://www.declineoftheempire.com/2011/06/peak-fish-and-the-age-of-slime.html">Myxocene</a> – the age of slime) and in researching her latest essay has clocked up thousands of miles as she dives on the Great Barrier Reef and travels inland to areas that will be affected by the proposed coal mine developments in the Galilee Basin. </p>
<p>Krien offers valuable insights into issues such as coal firm Adani’s negotiations with traditional owners, the battles over coal seam gas, and Port Augusta’s rocky transition from coal to – possibly – renewables. She talks to “ordinary” people, weaving their perspectives into the story while not losing sight of the climate deadlock in her title – the ongoing fight within the Liberal and National parties over climate and energy policy. </p>
<p>In one of many telling phrases she writes of the “Stockholm syndrome built on donations, royalties, taxes and threats” that bedevils Australian politics, pointing out that the fate that befell Kevin Rudd still looms large in the collective political memory. In the end, she returns to the Great Barrier Reef, and her final paragraphs pack an emotional punch that will stay with the reader for a long time.</p>
<p>My only quibble with Krien’s fastidious reporting is that, unlike previous Quarterly Essays, there are no footnotes. But maybe that’s only really an issue for nerds like me.</p>
<p>This is Quarterly Essay 66. Number 33 was Guy Pearse’s equally alarming <a href="https://www.quarterlyessay.com.au/essay/2009/03/quarry-vision">Quarry Vision</a>. In years to come, perhaps Quarterly Essay 99 might explain how we continued not to take action, as the consequences of climate change piled ever higher around us. Or how – alongside unexpected technological breakthroughs – we began finally to race against our nemesis, our own hubris. Time will tell.</p>
<p>Mark Butler is aiming to do something else besides just telling us about climate politics: as a shadow minister he is setting out Labor’s stall for the next federal election, whenever that might be. </p>
<p>Butler was climate minister in Rudd’s second, brief, government. In 2015-16 he undertook extensive consultations with business, community groups, academics and other “stakeholders” (surely everyone in the world is a stakeholder when it comes to the climate?). His book is essentially an extended advert for that process and its outcomes.</p>
<p>Butler’s prose is solid, and occasionally stolid, as he throws fact after report after statistic at the reader. However, he generally seeks to strike a constructive balance between “problem” and “solution”. There are only a few short chapters on the climate policy mess, with the bulk of the book concentrating on what a future Labor government proposes to do about it. </p>
<p>Inevitably, Butler is more critical of his political rivals, the Liberals and the Greens, than of his own party. You wouldn’t know from reading this book that it was Paul Keating’s Labor government who first began to use economic modelling to argue against emissions reductions, or that it was a Labor government who, in 1995, refused to institute a small carbon tax that would fund renewable energy. </p>
<p>Butler is also, oddly, flat-out wrong when he writes that former Labor minister Graham Richardson persuaded Prime Minister Bob Hawke to agree a 20% emissions reduction target before the 1990 federal election. It was actually his colleague <a href="https://theconversation.com/25-years-ago-the-australian-government-promised-deep-emissions-cuts-and-yet-here-we-still-are-46805">Ros Kelly, in October 1990</a>, and the “commitment” was carefully hedged. </p>
<p>These historical details matter, because we need to be able to hold politicians (and even ex-politicians) to account over their climate pledges. But many readers will nevertheless be more interested in what Butler says a Labor government will do, rather than what previous Labor governments didn’t. </p>
<p>Butler obliges, giving us chapters on “Labor’s clean power plan”, “Manufacturing and mining in a low-carbon world”, and “Low-carbon communities”. Occasionally he raises thorny problems (refugees, the coal industry) without really grappling with them. Given the ugly history around these issues (and the political Stockholm Syndrome identified by Krien), this is perhaps unsurprising. </p>
<p>Curiously, both books make a similar omission: they contain very little on the failures of policymakers and social movement organisations in the period from 2006 to 2012. In 2015, at the Labor Party’s national conference, I asked panellists – Butler was one – what had gone wrong during this time, which encompassed Kevin Rudd’s first prime ministership – in light of the fact that we had known about climate change since the late 1980s. </p>
<p>The other panellists gave thoughtful, sometimes self-critical answers. Butler kept schtum. Yet the question is worth asking if we are to avoid history repeating itself, this time as farce. We need smart people – and Krien and Butler are among them – to be asking how citizens can exert sustained pressure on existing governments and to build capacity to keep holding governments’ feet to the fire until they really and truly take climate policy seriously instead of just using it to score points and kill careers.</p>
<p>Ultimately, anyone interested in the future of Australia – and the future of climate policy – should read both of these books carefully. While Krien’s has some immediate use, its greater function will be something we can pull out of a time capsule to explain to young people 20 years hence that we knew <em>exactly</em> what was coming and what we had to do. It will help them understand why we didn’t do it. </p>
<p>Butler’s book will serve well over the next five years, as citizens try to hold a putative Labor government to its fine (if still inadequate) promises on the great moral challenge of our generation.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/80957/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
What future the Great Barrier Reef? What future energy policy? Two new publications on the ongoing battles of climate politics deserve close attention.Marc Hudson, PhD Candidate, Sustainable Consumption Institute, University of ManchesterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/810232017-07-14T02:50:53Z2017-07-14T02:50:53ZA brief history of Al Gore’s climate missions to Australia<p>Al Gore has been <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-10/donald-trump-isolated-on-climate-change-says-al-gore/8693806">visiting Australia this week</a> – partly because he has a <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2016/12/10/goremoviesequel/?utm_term=.ad92c8a60808">new film to promote</a>, but also because he and Australian climate policy have had a surprisingly long entanglement. Given that this year <a href="https://theconversation.com/australian-climate-politics-in-2017-a-guide-for-%20the-perplexed-70526">is likely to be a bloody one</a> as far as climate policy goes, don’t be surprised if he’s back again before 2017 is out.</p>
<p>Gore has a long and honourable record on climate change, although ironically his weakest period on climate coincided with the peak of his political power, as US Vice President.</p>
<p>As he says in his 2006 documentary <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0497116/">An Inconvenient Truth</a>, he was first alerted to climate change by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Revelle">Roger Revelle</a>, who can justly be called the (American) father of climate science. On becoming a Congressman, Gore was part of the move by Democrats to sustain momentum on climate policy that had stalled with the arrival of Ronald Reagan as President.</p>
<p>Gore organised <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/259162016/Gore-Hearing-on-global-warming-July-%2031-1981">Congressional hearings in 1981</a>, and 1982 (NASA climatologist James Hansen’s <a href="http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/2007/Testimony_20070319.pdf">first congressional testimony</a>).</p>
<p>Even back then, the familiar political narrative around climate change had already formed, as journalism academic David Sachsman <a href="http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/En56-157-2000E.pdf">recalls</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The CBS Evening News for March 25, 1982, included a two minute and 50 second story by David Culhane on the greenhouse effect. Chemist Melvin Calvin raised the threat of global warming, Representative Al Gore called for further research, and James Kane of the Energy Department said there was no need for haste.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This report from the following year tells a similar tale, noting the political difficulty of solving the climate problem:</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/T8JlBkOe6HU?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">A youthful Gore in 1983.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>By the time of the seminal <a href="http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2815/development_of_an_international_agenda_for_climate_change.html">Villach conference of October 1985</a>, Gore was a Senator, and helped to organise the first Senate hearings since 1979. Gore’s colleague, Republican Senator David Durenberger remarked that “grappling with this problem [of climate change] is going to be just about as easy as nailing Jello to the wall”.</p>
<p>The following year, as Joshua Howe notes in his excellent book on the politics and science of climate change, <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18762183-behind-the-curve">Behind the Curve</a> (2014), the then Senator Joe Biden introduced an initiative mandating that the president commission an executive-level task force to devise a strategy for responding to global warming – a strategy the president was meant to deliver to Congress within one year.</p>
<p>Gore scored another political victory on May 8, 1989, when Hansen testified that George H. W. Bush’s administration had <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/08/us/scientist-says-budget-office-altered-his-testimony.html?pagewanted=all">ordered him to change the conclusions in written testimony regarding the seriousness of global warming</a></p>
<h2>From Vice President to movie star</h2>
<p>However, as Vice President to Bill Clinton, Gore disappointed environmentalists. An energy tax was <a href="http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1993-06-09/news/1993160006_1_btu-tax-energy-tax-kind-of-tax">defeated by industry lobbyists in 1993</a>, and the Clinton administration (perhaps wisely) opted not to try and pass the Kyoto Protocol through a <a href="http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSenate.html">defiant Senate</a>.</p>
<p>After leaving the West Wing he embraced Hollywood, where his budding movie career attracted derision in some quarters, despite the hefty policy achievements earlier in Gore’s career.</p>
<p>Besides an Inconvenient Truth (see <a href="https://theconversation.com/ten-years-on-how-%20al-gores-an-inconvenient-truth-made-its-mark-59387">here</a> for an account of its impact in Australia), Gore “starred” in another movie, the 1990 philosophy-based talkie <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100151/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1">Mindwalk</a>, starring Sam Waterston as Senator Jack Edwards, a thinly veiled version of Gore. </p>
<p>Former Australian industry minister Ian Macfarlane certainly considered Gore more entertainer than policymaker when <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2006/s1737704.htm">speculating on his reasons for visiting in 2006</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Well, Al Gore’s here to sell tickets to a movie, and no one can begrudge him that. It’s just entertainment, and really that’s all it is.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Gore and Australia</h2>
<p>Gore has been on these shores many times. During his May 2003 visit Gore <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/03/1051876899977.html">urged the then Prime Minister John Howard to ratify the Kyoto Protocol</a>. He met with the then New South Wales Premier Bob Carr, and also with former Liberal leader and current climate hawk John Hewson. He spoke at an <a href="http://www.naturaledgeproject.net/documents/FinalBLFSD03progrrevd19-5.pdf">event co-hosted by the Business Council of Australia</a> to advocate sustainable development.</p>
<p>After a controversial visit in 2005, Gore visited twice in 2006. As Joan Staples <a href="https://joanstaples.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/joan-staples-%20phd-thesis-for-printing1.pdf">notes in her PhD</a>, he teamed up with the Australian Conservation Foundation to launch his Climate Project:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Having reached out to the wider NGO sector, to doctors, unions, and the corporate sector, this initiative then moved ACF’s efforts towards influencing individual citizens. Gore’s organisation aimed to harness the power of mass mobilisation by expanding the message of his film An Inconvenient Truth.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Gore returned in 2007 and spoke at a A$1,000-a-plate event on the <a href="https://www.nsxa.com.au/documents/news/FEX-SIM%20NSX%20Market%20Release%20draft%209-7-07-final.pdf">Sustainability and Cleantech Investment Market</a>, with Carr introducing him while clutching a copy of Gore’s 1992 book <a href="https://www.algore.com/library/earth-in-the-balance">Earth in the Balance</a>.</p>
<p>He had his share of Australian critics too. On a frosty morning in July 2009 Gore’s launch speech of the <a href="http://gozer.com.au/work/safe-climate-australia/">Safe Climate Australia</a> initiative attracted around 30 members of the newly formed Climate Sceptics Party, who handed out leaflets and wore t-shirts bearing their slogan: “Carbon Really Ain’t Pollution – CRAP”.</p>
<p>Gore also <a href="http://www.climaticoanalysis.org/post/al-gore-in-melbourne-to-address-climate-change/">offered an opinion</a> on Kevin Rudd’s proposed climate legislation: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>It’s not what I would have written, I would have written it as a stronger bill, but I’m realistic about what can be accomplished in the political system as it is.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Gore seems to have (wisely) eschewed direct involvement during the tumultuous Julia Gillard years, but <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/24/al-gore-%20attacks-tony-abbotts-refusal-to-link-bushfires-with-climate-change">pitched in</a> in October 2013 when the new Prime Minister Tony Abbott refused to link bushfires with climate change.</p>
<h2>The Palmer moment</h2>
<p>Perhaps the most bizarre, rub-my-eyes-did-that-just-happen moment came in June 2014, when Gore <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2014/s4033228.htm">stood alongside Clive Palmer</a> in a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/26/al-gore-and-clive-palmer-behind-%20the-scenes-of-an-unlikely-bromance">deal to save some of Gillard’s carbon policy package from Tony Abbott’s axe</a>.</p>
<p>In July 2015, with the Paris climate conference approaching, Gore visited on a <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/al-gore-flies-into-australia-to-push-momentum-towards-paris-climate-summit-20150726-gikno6.html">whistlestop tour</a> that included meetings with senior business figures (BHP, National Australia Bank, Qantas, and Victorian state government ministers) to try and build momentum ahead of the crucial summit.</p>
<h2>Looking into the crystal ball</h2>
<p>Despite his <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21262661/ns/us_news-environment/t/gore-un-climate-panel-win-nobel-peace-prize/#.VEQzO6024YQ">Nobel Prize shared with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change</a>, <a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Al-Gore-Manual-Alexander-Cockburn/dp/1859848036">not everyone is a fan</a>, with Canadian journalism academic Chris Russill arguing that Gore’s approach “<a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0963662510364201">narrows our understanding of climate change discourse</a>”.</p>
<p>And just because some climate sceptics think he’s a very naughty boy – and can <a href="https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2013/07/23/the-gore-effect-nature-strikes-back-at-a-charlatan">change the weather by his mere presence</a> – that doesn’t mean he’s <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plZRe1kPWZw">the messiah</a>.</p>
<p>Ultimately, we all need to find new and better ways of exerting more sustained pressure, not only on policymakers but also other institutions and norm-makers in our society, to change the trajectory we’re currently on. </p>
<p>Gore will keep banging on about climate change. He will turn up to give speeches, and will be both praised and derided. What matters is not what he does the same, but what we all do differently.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/81023/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Al Gore’s trip to Australia this week is the latest in a long line of visits - and not just because he has movies to promote.Marc Hudson, PhD Candidate, Sustainable Consumption Institute, University of ManchesterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/757622017-04-10T05:10:15Z2017-04-10T05:10:15ZWhy China is serious about becoming the global leader on climate change<p>The Trump administration’s hostility towards <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-paris-climate-change-deal-myron-ebell-us-president-america-pull-out-agreement-a7553676.html">climate action</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/16/trump-budget-cuts-climate-change-clean-up-programs-epa">research</a> leaves a void in global climate politics. Could China step up?</p>
<p>The world’s <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data">largest absolute emitter</a> could certainly use US inaction as an excuse to backslide on its promises of greenery. But China could instead see this as an opportunity to project itself as our planet’s leading custodian.</p>
<p>Evidence suggests the latter course is far more likely. Opening the annual National People’s Congress in March, premier Li Keqiang pledged to “<a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/china-national-peoples-congress-economic-growth-target-smog-make-sky-blue-a7612041.html">make the sky blue again</a>”. Both the <a href="http://www.china.org.cn/china/NPC_CPPCC_2017/2017-03/18/content_40472170_5.htm">report</a> he presented and the <a href="http://www.china.org.cn/china/NPC_CPPCC_2017/node_7246487.htm">legislation and decisions</a> reached continued to stress environmental issues, albeit perhaps not as emphatically as in <a href="http://www.asianews.it/news-en/NPC:-Beijing-promises-to-protect-the-environment,-but-censors-pollution-documentaries-33650.html">recent years</a>. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, in January at the annual World Economic Forum pow-wow in Davos, president Xi Jinping took advantage of Trump’s economic nationalism to affirm <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/03/donald-trump-making-china-great-again-xi-jinping">China’s commitment to globalisation</a>. As the US rejects the very idea of global responsibilities, China is thus apparently aiming to reap the rewards of positioning itself as the polar opposite. </p>
<p>This isn’t just empty rhetoric. Chinese investment overseas in green technology <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/1906e7e4-193f-11e7-9c35-0dd2cb31823a?segmentId=0dc146e2-0347-2f06-2895-82a019f88ed7">increased by 60% last year to US$32 billion</a>. More importantly, the broader context of Chinese domestic politics has created strong incentives for further environmental efforts. This suggests an authentic medium to long-term commitment. And in China, it is the “dog” of domestic politics and regime legitimacy that wags the “tail” of geopolitical strategising.</p>
<h2>Domestic pressure for climate policy</h2>
<p>The environment is already a massive and potentially explosive issue within China. The increasingly powerful urban middle classes are becoming ever-more aware of environmental issues, particularly those that affect their health, such as <a href="https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/9574-Can-China-meet-its-2-17-air-quality-goals-">air pollution</a> or food, soil and water safety.</p>
<p>The government’s key programme to make <a href="http://www.cbbc.org/mic2025/">manufacturing more innovative</a> is also intimately tied to environmental goals and the opportunities of “cleantech” such as <a href="https://theconversation.com/could-teslas-model-x-drive-us-towards-electric-cars-for-all-48452">electric cars</a>). Even China’s digital giants including Alibaba and Tencent are more interested in the environment than their equivalents
<a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/Books/Chinas-Disruptors-Alibaba-Tencent-Companies-Changing-Business/0241240387/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1491228454&sr=1-1&keywords=tse+disruptor">in Silicon Valley</a>.</p>
<h2>Restoring Chinese greatness</h2>
<p>There are even broader factors at play too. As the country has grown in both domestic prosperity and global stature over the past 40 years it has gradually been compelled to address with ever-greater urgency its own central question. This is: how will China once again be the unquestioned centre of the world? </p>
<p>Restoring civilisational preeminence is easier said than done, however, especially given the starting place for these efforts. The past 200 years have seen a violent repudiation of traditional cultures and painful engagement with Western-dominated modernity. This remains a sensitive wound. For central to the Chinese concept of a unique “Chineseness” is both its unsurpassed cultural greatness and its unrivalled longevity. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/164462/original/image-20170407-29410-tkaqzp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/164462/original/image-20170407-29410-tkaqzp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/164462/original/image-20170407-29410-tkaqzp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=318&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/164462/original/image-20170407-29410-tkaqzp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=318&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/164462/original/image-20170407-29410-tkaqzp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=318&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/164462/original/image-20170407-29410-tkaqzp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/164462/original/image-20170407-29410-tkaqzp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/164462/original/image-20170407-29410-tkaqzp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Chinese culture has endured for thousands of years.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jiajing_Emperor_on_his_state_barge.jpg">Unknown Ming court artist, 1538AD</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Embryonic “<a href="http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21657655-oxbridge-one-direction-and-premier-league-bolster-britains-power-persuade-softly-does-it">soft power</a>” efforts have proven <a href="http://www.economist.com/news/china/21719508-can-money-buy-sort-thing-china-spending-billions-make-world-love-it">problematic</a>, which calls into question the universal appeal of Chinese culture. Meanwhile, traditional ideas such as Confucianism occupy only peripheral roles in contemporary life. This exposes both the comparative youth of modern China and the unresolved legacies of its traumatic breaks with its past.</p>
<p>The situation creates twinned dissonances: between China’s actual and “rightful” standing in the world and between its actual and desired relation to its own traditional culture. Crucially, though, protecting the environment is seen by the government as a key opportunity in both cases. Hence Beijing’s leading slogan of “<a href="https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/8018-Interpreting-ecological-civilisation-part-one-">ecological civilization</a>” – significantly a <em>civilizational</em> project that also, inseparably, has environmental sustainability at its heart. </p>
<p>The idea here is to draw on and renew distinctively Chinese ideas of Confucian harmony between humans and nature. This, it is hoped, could present a China to the world whose culture uniquely qualifies it to be the global environmental saviour. And it could reconnect the Chinese themselves to their traditional cultures, updated for a contemporary world of environmental responsibility.</p>
<p>Progress is unlikely to be smooth. China’s one-party state does allow for the massive mobilisation of resources crucial to the major projects of sustainable transitions. But that same political structure – best described as “<a href="http://falcon.arts.cornell.edu/am847/pdf/fa_2.0.1.pdf">fragmented authoritarianism</a>” – also makes it harder to foster <a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Paper-Tigers-Hidden-Dragons-Technological/dp/0198777205/">cutting-edge innovation</a> and harder to implement environmental regulations – and to involve different stakeholders in decision-making.</p>
<p>As such, China still lags behind the US in the global game of cultural hegemony. Yet its grand project of “ecological civilization” is so important in contemporary domestic politics that the environment will likely be seen as China’s trump card for some time yet. If America chooses to play its hand badly in the meantime, this will simply be welcomed in Beijing as a further stroke of good luck.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/75762/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Tyfield’s ‘Liberalism 2.0 and the Rise of China: Global Crisis, Innovation and Urban Mobility’ will be published by Routledge in August 2017. He is Principal Investigator on the ESRC project "Low Carbon Innovation in China: Prospects, Politics and Practice" (2013-17).</span></em></p>Beijing wants to build an ‘ecological civilisation’.David Tyfield, Reader in Environmental Innovation & Sociology, Lancaster UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/705262017-01-01T18:33:55Z2017-01-01T18:33:55ZAustralian climate politics in 2017: a guide for the perplexed<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/151339/original/image-20161222-4063-1ik1rlv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The climate debate can give you a headache at the best of times. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Confused person image from www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>If you thought the climate debate has been ugly, you haven’t seen anything yet. In 2017 Australia will review its climate policies, and the process is not off to a good start. </p>
<p>To recap: with the release of the climate review’s terms of reference at the end of 2016, the federal environment and energy minister, Josh Frydenberg, appeared to place on the table an <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-05/government-to-consider-carbon-price-for-power-generators/8091912">emissions intensity scheme</a> (a widely supported form of carbon pricing). He then wisely <a href="https://twitter.com/JoshFrydenberg/status/808053836648775680">went to Antarctica</a>. </p>
<p>After its day in the sun, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-07/frydenberg-denies-backtrack-on-emissions-intensity-scheme/8099250">Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull swiftly backtracked</a> in part due to pressure from <a href="https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-has-turnbulls-credibility-deficit-reached-a-point-of-no-return-70144">conservatives within the Coalition</a>. By allowing a small group of politicians to take the most cost-effective policy off the table at the outset, Turnbull has made the coming year(s) that much harder to manage.</p>
<p>In the same week, Chief Scientist Alan Finkel reported his initial findings on the security of the National Electricity Market. He <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/09/alan-finkel-warns-investment-has-stalled-over-climate-policy-uncertainty">stated that his review</a> “will continue to analyse all the options to ensure future security of power supply and compliance with climate obligations”.</p>
<p>And that was only 2016…</p>
<h2>Reviews galore</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://www.environment.gov.au/energy/national-electricity-market-review">Finkel review</a> of the National Electricity Market will be released in 2017. At the same time, the government will begin its climate policy review. </p>
<p>Unless the political circumstances change dramatically, <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/review-climate-change-policies">the review</a> will conclude by the end of this year. </p>
<p>Every step of the way will see protests, media stunts, hostile leaking and lobbying – public and private – by big actors. Climate and energy will consume the national news agenda, which will leave voters and viewers exhausted.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/64722841-01ab-4067-a978-40d63174d4c7/files/tor-climate-change-review.pdf">terms of reference</a> state that the review will look into:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>the role of international carbon permits in reaching targets</p></li>
<li><p>a long-term emissions-reduction goal after 2030</p></li>
<li><p>asking the department to look at the impact of state-based policies, including the states’ own ambitious renewable energy targets, and whether this helps or hinders the national approach</p></li>
<li><p>the impact of policies on jobs, investment, trade competitiveness, households and regional Australia</p></li>
<li><p>Turnbull’s move to combine the energy and environment portfolios and whether this is the best way to tackle climate policy.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>That there is nothing in this about an expanded and lengthened Renewable Energy Target will mean nothing to groups who want it discussed.</p>
<h2>What can the government actually achieve now?</h2>
<p>Now the government has ruled out the most promising policy option, who will be willing to lead the hamstrung review? Watch this space. </p>
<p>And what is left on the policy table? There are a couple of options: </p>
<ul>
<li><p>expanding the large-scale Renewable Energy Target (RET) – this seems unlikely, given the amount of grief Turnbull and Frydenberg have been giving <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/oct/10/malcolm-turnbull-says-labors-stance-on-renewable-energy-is-political-claptrap">South Australia and Queensland over their own renewable targets of late</a></p></li>
<li><p>regulating the closure of coal-fired power stations – this seems unlikely too, given the failure of the “cash for closures” scheme under the Gillard Labor government</p></li>
<li><p>further restrictions on land use (unlikely to make the National Party very happy) and research into methane reductions from livestock (cue headlines about cow farts).</p></li>
</ul>
<p>But asides from not making environmentalists particularly happy, these will not resolve the questions of grid security and energy pricing, both of which have the potential to cause political and economic mayhem.</p>
<h2>Sharpen the pitchforks</h2>
<p>Labor will use climate as a “wedge issue”, perhaps more gingerly and cautiously than Kevin Rudd did ahead of the 2007 election.</p>
<p>The government’s relations with the state governments will stay fraught. South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill has mooted a states-based emissions intensity scheme, but there is <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/no-takers-as-jay-weatherill-backflips-on-carbon-scheme/news-story/240471b9a14636f33f2809b8dd2b57dd">little appetite from other states</a>, and <a href="http://www.afr.com/news/politics/alan-finkel-urges-energy-rethink-as-industry-threatens-to-leave-20161208-gt7cc1">business appears unenthusiastic</a></p>
<p>However, Weatherill may now be tempted to deflect blame for any South Australian energy problems onto Turnbull, who has made himself into a piñata.</p>
<p><a href="http://bca.com.au/media/business-council-statement-on-2017-climate-change-review-terms-of-reference">Business is fuming</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/dec/14/energy-suppliers-business-and-consumer-groups-call-for-climate-policy-certainty">some odd coalitions are forming</a>. The policy uncertainty (caused of course in no small part by the business sector’s failure to defend Gillard’s carbon tax) is aggravating them and scaring away investment. The worst possible outcome for business – a patchwork of state laws causing more work and less profit – is a distinct possibility.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, the gas industry has had its <a href="http://gastoday.com.au/news/appea_-_adding_gas_to_the_mix/4430">beady eye on electricity generation</a> for well over a decade. It <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-gas-industry-needs-a-carbon-price-to-compete-with-coal-67058">wants some sort of emissions trading</a> scheme badly, so it can be in pole position as lots of coal-fired plants are closing soon.</p>
<p>Expect to see a “gas versus coal” battle, with coal pointing to gas prices rising, because it fetches more on the international market. The <a href="http://www.reserveourgas.com.au/how_would_a_gas_reservation_policy_work">question of reservation policy</a> – hated by many – may attract some strange allies.</p>
<p>The environmental movement will struggle over this. They are still bruised over the Rudd and Gillard policy battles, and an emissions intensity scheme is numbingly technical. In her excellent <a href="http://handle.unsw.edu.au/1959.4/55089">PhD thesis</a> at the University of New South Wales, Rebecca Pearse argued that many activists have moved on to either supporting community-based renewables or contesting fossil-fuel infrastructure projects. </p>
<p>Of course, anti-green groups will also be hard at work, perhaps led by Coalition MPs Cory Bernardi and George Christensen and the Institute of Public Affairs. All have argued that Australia should do much less on climate change. </p>
<h2>Expect anything</h2>
<p>Finkel’s final electricity review is due in March. It will be interesting to see if the attacks that have happened to other scientists involved in climate and energy happen to him. </p>
<p>At some point in 2017 Al Gore will release a sequel to his 2006 documentary <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/dec/09/al-gore-inconvenient-truth-sequel-sundance">An Inconvenient Truth</a>. Expect to see reactions to that.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://pacificguardians.org/blog/2016/11/19/fiji-awarded-president-for-2017-un-climate-summit-cop-23-calls-on-donald-trump-to-visit-fiji/.html">next big international negotiations</a>, chaired by Fiji but hosted by Germany, will take place in November 2017.</p>
<p>Will President Trump have taken the United States out of the Paris Agreement by then? Will the US pull out of the entire <a href="http://newsroom.unfccc.int/">climate convention</a>? Or will Trump settle for just sending the office junior to the negotiations, while gutting his Environmental Protection Authority? </p>
<p>Nobody knows, probably not even the president-elect himself. A <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/dec/20/trump-style-political-disaffection-taking-hold-in-australia-review-says">recent ANU study</a> points to Trump-style disaffection taking hold in Australian politics.</p>
<p>There’s a hoary old <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/274551-it-ought-to-be-remembered-that-there-is-nothing-more">Machiavelli quote</a> that gets dragged out in articles like these about the political pain that transitions cause:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In these dire times, it is unclear who could call an end – or a ceasefire – to what Guardian journalist <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/dec/10/turnbull-was-right-in-2009-ruling-out-emissions-trading-is-bullshit">Lenore Taylor</a> calls “the stupid barren years of the carbon wars”. It’s what some public policy theorists call a “<a href="http://glossary.usip.org/resource/mutually-hurting-stalemate">hurting stalemate</a>”.</p>
<p>This is going to be bloody.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/70526/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marc Hudson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>If you thought the climate debate has been ugly, you haven’t seen anything yet. In 2017 Australia will review its climate policies, and the process is not off to a good start.Marc Hudson, PhD Candidate, Sustainable Consumption Institute, University of ManchesterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.