Dear Scomo 6

So, in honour of the Gas-Fired Recovery(TM) and the Technology Roadmap(TM) I have included the Minister for Energy and (ensuring there is no) Emissions Reduction Angus Taylor in my latest Dear Scomo letter.

My source of hope (and don't we all need hope?) is that the federal Liberal and National Parties are part of a small and decreasing number of people and organisations who still don't get that climate action is essential.  The climate war is over, but our current Commonwealth Government is like one of those Japanese soldiers still holed up in some remote jungle, not having heard the news and still holding their posts for the Emperor.  We need to entice them out and give them the good news so that they can get on with their jobs.

***

Dear Prime Minister and Minister

I trust you and your families are well and thriving through the COVID crisis.

Thanks to your success in keeping COVID-19 at bay so far (and trusting we continue to do a god job on this front!) we are now able to focus attention on how we recover from the economic slowdown that the pandemic has caused.  This reconstruction presents us with an ideal opportunity to pivot to a clean economy, rapidly investing in processes and technologies which will drive our emissions down and transitioning out of polluting industries and processes.  

However, we could also use this time badly, and lock ourselves into investments which will take us well over the target of 1.5-2.0 degrees warming agreed in the Paris Accord.  Recent signals from your government are highly ambiguous, so I am writing to encourage you to clearly commit to a clean recovery which drives strong emissions reduction.

‘No target without a plan’

Both of you have repeatedly said that you will not commit to an emissions reduction target without a plan to achieve it.  Minister Taylor is reported as saying this most recently at the National Farmers Federation conference, at which the NFF adopted a policy of supporting net zero emissions by 2050.  (I understand the only dissent to this resolution within the NFF came from people who felt the target should be more ambitious.)

I agree that a target without a plan to achieve it is meaningless.  However, I remain baffled by your use of this line.  In my work I frequently assist not-for-profit organisations to develop and review their strategic plans and it is a truism of such planning that the goals and targets come first, and the strategies follow.  If you don’t know where you are trying to get to, then a roadmap won’t help you.  The NFF, and numerous other organisations, are taking the more usual course and setting a target, knowing that there is a lot of work to be done to achieve it.

Now in fact we have a target.  In fact, we have two.  In signing the Paris Accord we have agreed to the international goal of keeping global temperature increases below 2 degrees and ideally to 1.5.  The scientists tell us this translates into needing to achieve net zero by 2050 and a 40% reduction in global emissions by 2030.  We also have our own national target of a 26-28% reduction by 2030.  These targets are clearly incompatible – if we are to do our share we need to cut by at least 40% by 2030 and as a wealthy nation with massive technological capability, we could easily contribute more.

Of course as you say we need a strategy to get there.  Here are some things I have been thinking about.

AEMO’s Integrated System Plan

As you know, the Australian Energy Market Operator released its Integrated System Plan in July this year, outlining its plan for our electricity system out to 2040.  This outlines its optimal pathway to secure energy over the coming two decades, and envisages a wholesale shift from centralised coal-fired power to decentralised renewables backed by grid security measures which are primarily pumped hydro, batteries, demand response, virtual powerplants and a small amount of gas generation.

I notice that Minister Taylor issued a press release in July supporting this plan.  This makes it rather curious that your government is simultaneously funding a feasibility study into a new coal-fired generator in Queensland and promoting a ‘gas-fired recovery’, neither of which seem compatible with AEMO’s plan.  I would encourage you to stick with the plan, publicly support it and put the policy, financial and regulatory settings in place that can make it happen.

Hydrogen and EVs

In the leadup to the last election, your government promised to develop both a hydrogen strategy and a strategy for electric vehicles.  When can we expect to see progress on these?  Both have huge economic and emissions reduction potential.  Electric vehicles are now competitive with petrol vehicles on a lifetime cost basis and purchase prices are still falling rapidly.  EVs have the potential to transform and decarbonise road transport over the next decade and government support can give this a kick along.

I recently read Ross Garnaut’s Super Power, an immensely exciting and hopeful book.  Garnaut talks about the economic potential involved in a rapid development of renewable energy and clean hydrogen.  Our abundant renewable resources, technical capability and resource base leave us ideally placed to renew our manufacturing industries, using clean hydrogen to produce steel and aluminium here in Australia instead of exporting raw materials for processing elsewhere.  These technologies are already in existence, and while not yet economically competitive the experience of wind, solar and battery power shows just how quickly these costs can come down.  

The farm sector

Returning to the National Farmers Federation, it is hardly surprising that they have urged strong action on climate change.  Of all Australians it is our farmers who are most on the frontlines of climate.  Their very livelihoods depend on the climate, and they are the ones who lose the most when we have droughts, floods and fires.

In adopting their target, the farm sector is also working on detailed strategies.  I was excited to read, for instance, that the red meat sector is working on a strategy to become net carbon neutral by 2030.  Other farming industries have focused on carbon capture in trees and soil, and on adaptation to deal with the challenges of a hotter, drier climate.  They have asked for some specific supports from government which I trust you are considering favourably.

No longer a partisan issue

The NFF’s position is a great example of the fact that climate change has long ceased to be a partisan issue.  Nothing exemplifies this better than the Australian Climate Round Table.  This body includes organisations from across the spectrum – peak industry and business organisations, the NFF, ACOSS, the ACTU and of course some key environmental organisations.  This mix includes bodies that would usually be regarded as constituencies of all three major parties as well as the Greens.  These bodies are in agreement in calling for greater ambition and urgency in our climate policies.

This fact is also highlighted by the fact that all our State governments, irrespective of political colour, have targets involving net zero emissions by 2050.  I saw a report last week in which NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian took part in a conversation with former British Prime Minister Theresa May and expressed the view that it would not actually be that difficult to meet this target and expressing a wish that your government would commit to it as the States already have.  Even some fossil fuel companies are making plans towards this end – I note that recently BP expressed the view that oil use is close to its peak and that coal use will reduce to zero by 2050.  BP, one of the world’s most polluting companies at the moment, also has a ‘net zero by 2050’ target!

In walking both sides of the street on this issue, your government risks being behind the rest of the nation and the world, including so many of your own supporters.  This is because like the pandemic, this is an issue where both the science and the economics are clear.  If we and other nations fail to take action soon, we will do immense damage to our climate and our planet, and the economic costs to our communities, especially our farmers and regional communities, will be severe.  This is an issue where increasingly we are all on the same page.

Economic transition

I get that one of the most difficult aspects of climate action is the question of transition.  As we move to a low-carbon economy some jobs will disappear, and quite a lot of these will be in regional communities that are already struggling.  We saw that in last year’s election with the desperation of many people in Central and North Queensland to keep the coal industry going.  I now many of those communities and how hard economic change can be on them, and our society often manages this poorly.

It may seem attractive in the short term to play on these fears for electoral advantage and try to prolong the life of these industries.  However there are two problems with this strategy.  The first is that if we delay action on climate change we will bring about increasing costs in other sectors of our economy, including the very regional economies we are trying to protect – our farmers being the prime example.  The second is that in the medium term these industries and businesses will close in an unplanned way and we will be left with stranded assets and substantial unplanned job losses, such as those we saw with the closures of Hazelwood and Queensland Nickel to name just two of many.

We can avoid both these problems through a planned transition, which can allow us to contribute to minimising climate change and at the same time build alternative industries in the communities that will lose high-carbon jobs.

Clean and Fair Recovery

In conclusion, I would like to suggest that talking about a ‘gas-fired recovery’, while a neat turn of phrase, is a huge mistake.  The focus on our recovery needs to be on driving our transition to a low-carbon future.  

I trust both of you will stay safe and well in the coming months, and look forward to seeing you finally make progress on our economic transformation.  What could be a better legacy than being the Prime Minister and Minister who finally ended our foolish climate wars and put us on the path to a zero carbon future?

Yours sincerely

Jon