I've been busy so this article is a bit late, the Labor Party released its climate change policy back in December. The election hasn't happened yet but it's already clear what Labor's strategy will be. They will be just a little bit better than the Coalition. This is not difficult, surely they can achieve it!
In some areas it just involves being a little bit more competent at doing the same thing. They would have ordered vaccines and RATS in time (we will never know). They voted to pass the Government's Religious Discrimination Bill with a few amendments (proposed by independent members) to make it less crap enough for the Government to withdraw it. On asylum seekers they promise to be better at trampling on people's human rights.
Here are seven ways that Labor's climate plan is the same as the Coalition's, but a little bit less crap.
1. Still Not Zero
The Coalition promises to get to 'net zero emissions' by 2050 but when you read their plan, even their own wildly optimistic estimates only get to 85%. And as Angus Taylor says, it is 'net zero not absolute zero' - they are planning for Australia to go on emitting large quantities of greenhouse gases while re-capturing some of them through Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), which doesn't work, and by offsets, which sometimes work but the amount of offsets needed would be massive. Meanwhile, their 2030 goal remains stuck at 26-28% reduction from 2005 although they say in a vague kind of way that they could do more if they are lucky.
The Labor plan has one difference from the Coalition's - it promises to get to a reduction in 'net emissions' of 43% by 2030. Labor has also said it will get to net zero by 2050 but it doesn't say how, its whole focus is on the 2030 target. This target is also a 'not 43%' target, it is also 'net'. Some of it will be through emissions reductions and some through 'other means' - basically, offsets and CCS.
There's also another 'not zero' trick which both parties use with equal shamelessness - the claim that we have already reduced emissions by 20% so only 6-8%, or 23%, to go. The trick is that back in 2007 Australia managed to get land-use emissions (mainly from deforestation) counted as part of each country's emissions profile. This is not totally stupid - cutting down trees and forests (or burning them) does indeed release carbon. However, what they did in setting their own targets for Kyoto and for Paris was to pick a base year (1990, then 2005) in which there were historically high levels of land clearing. Then, when land-clearing goes back to normal, you can claim you reduced your emissions. For an extra bonus, you can use the Emissions Reduction Fund to pay people not to cut down trees (yes indeed, literally money for nothing) and claim that as a reduction. Next thing you know, bingo! we have a 20% emissions reduction since 2005. If you take this out of the picture, Australia's emissions have stayed about the same, even increased a bit, with reduced electricity emissions (thanks State Governments!) offset by increased transport and industrial emissions. And this is before you start asking questions about how deforestation is reported and measured.
Anyway. Not zero. Not even 43%. But not quite as crap as the current lot.
2. Technology, but Different Technology
Labor's policy also focuses on technology. Because they are leaving any period after 2030 as a blank slate, all the technologies they talk about exist - renewable energy, batteries, electric vehicles, carbon farming. How will this technology come into being and be implemented? Not entirely clear, but at least it's real.
3. Technologies that Sort of Work
The Government relies on a mix of technologies that are good for reducing emissions (solar power, energy storage) some that are OK (soil carbon), some that are mostly fantasy (CCS) and some that don't exist at all. As I mention, all Labor's named technologies work, in the sense that they can actually be implemented (they don't mention CCS, although it is lurking there in the shadows) but will they actually reduce emissions?
The big ticket item in their policy document is $20b for upgrading electricity transmission. We know electricity transmission works, and it's a fact that if we want to deploy renewables at scale we need to build new transmission lines that don't just connect everything to the existing coal generators. They also have a few 'small ticket' items - a little bit of money for community batteries, solar banks, and a modest EV strategy. All these things work, but only the transmission upgrade adds up to any significant cut in emissions and even this relies on someone else (i.e. companies, driven by State governments) building the generators that will connect to it.
Their chosen technologies are also not necessarily optimal. For instance, EVs are a very low-ambition way to cut transport emissions, and they perpetuate the other problems in our transport system. If you're serious, you need to make a major investment in active transport infrastructure (walking, biking etc) and public transport - and this also has a swag of other benefits.
There are also some mystery technologies here, even in the lead-up to 2030. Labor's strategy relies heavily on using the Safeguard Mechanism to gradually reduce the level of emissions companies can produce. How they reduce their emissions is up to them and hence something of a black box, but if you join the dots you can see that lower industrial emissions is paired with carbon farming, and this tells you, without quite saying it, that there will be lots of reducing 'net emissions' by buying offsets which pay farmers to trap carbon in soil, which kind of works but is a poorer outcome than not making the emissions at all. And you can bet, given this process leaves it up to industry, that there will be a fair bit of CCS jiggery-pokery in there too.
4. We All Love Coal and Gas
The government, at least, is honest in telling us that its climate plan is just a smokescreen for ongoing expansion of the fossil fuels industry in Australia. They barely took time out from their constant coal and gas spruiking to announce their Not Zero policy.
Labor is slightly more adept at talking out of both sides of their mouth. The Powering Australia document does not contain the word 'coal' except as part of the word 'Coalition', and the word 'gas' only occurs in a reference to Coalition policy failure and in reference to agricultural methane. It's almost as if the Labor Party doesn't realise that climate change is caused by burning fossil fuels. These industries get some brief mentions in the no-details Reputex economic report that accompanies the policy, but more by way of context than focused analysis. There is no suggestion in this document that Labor will support any kind of managed transition out of fossil fuels for the regions and workers who depend on these industries.
Meanwhile, out of the other side of their mouths Labor MPs, and particularly Anthony Albanese, are doing their best to outdo the Coalition in declaring their eternal love for coal and gas. They have voted to support government subsidy for the Beetaloo Basin gas-field, have donned the hard-hat to visit coal mines, and Albanese intervened personally to ensure that Labor's candidate to replace Joel Fitzgibbon in the Hunter is a bearded coal mining blokey bloke instead of one of the more environmentally responsible alternatives who were putting up their hand for a pre-selection contest that was never allowed to take place. In case you are thinking that maybe all this will change once they get into government, just take a look at the Labor State Governments in Queensland and Western Australia.
Over the past three decades one of the Coalition's favourite sticks to beat Labor with has been the wholly fictitious claim that any climate action proposed by the Labor Party will ruin the Australian economy, raise power prices, ruin the weekend and generally be the end of civilisation as we know it. Labor has stumbled into this trap so many times that it is like one of those time loop stories where everyone is doomed to live the same life over and over again.
This has become increasingly difficult to sell as the two parties' climate policies have converged but that won't stop Morrison, Joyce, Taylor and co from giving it a red hot go. Labor, with Chris Bowen as climate change minister, are determined that they won't fall for it this time, and their economic story is full of sunshine and light. Economic growth will continue thanks to the glorious economic opportunities in the transition, 604,000 jobs will be created, electricity prices will fall, there will be wonderful new industries for the regions and all the streets will be paved with gold, or at least lithium.
6. The Carbon Price in the Appendix
Technology Not Taxes is the chosen three-word slogan for the Coalition's not-zero policy. This will allow them to simultaneously pretend they are serious about climate change, and imply that Labor, by contrast, will achieve their non-serious policy by taxing everyone. This made it necessary for the government to bury the carbon price in the appendix of their modelling report, where the modellers report that their preferred scenario uses $25 per tonne.
In the interests of convergence, the Labor Party has done the same. They don't use the slogan, since it's already taken, but like the coalition they have a 'technology not taxes' plan with an identical carbon price buried in the appendix. Everyone knows that a key way to make industries reduce their emissions is to make them pay money to emit. But it's a bit like how babies are made, we all know it, but we don't talk about it in front of the children.
7. We Take This Seriously (LOL)
It's abundantly clear that the Coalition is having a loan of us on climate policy. They don't even try to hide it. The day after the launch of their climate policy the Deputy Prime Minster was filmed in front of a coal train. The government made a gas company's CCS proposal the centrepiece of their COP26 stall. They banged the table in their refusal to increase their 2030 target. What you see is what you get.
Labor is a little more tricksy, mostly because they know that if they totally alienate the environment movement they will never get elected. So they promote their climate policy with a straight face. They keep Chris Bowen away from the coal and gas spruiking. They don't say 'CCS' out loud. There are no Labor MPs out there, not even Joel Fitzgibbon, claiming that climate change is a big hoax.
Labor will not be our climate saviour. As if to reinforce the point, there is an interesting detail on Page 12 of the Powering Australia document where they make the case for greater Commonwealth ambition by comparing the Coalition Government's target of a 26-28% emissions reduction by 2030 with those of Australia's States and Territories. They don't mention who is currently governing those States and Territories so let me correct this oversight here.
Coalition States
Tasmania - 100%
South Australia - 50%
NSW - 50%
Labor States/Territories
ACT - 65-75%
Victoria - 45-50%
Queensland - 30%
Western Australian - to be announced 'early 2022'
Northern Territory - none
I don't think I need to comment on those lists.
Labor supporters will tell us (and have been saying stridently on social media) that this policy is responsible and realistic, unlike those weird idealists in the Greens and the climate movement who are pushing for a 75% reduction (or even a 50% one). But this reflects a particular view of reality - not scientific reality, not even economic reality, but political reality. Labor's judgement is that if they present a climate policy in line with actual, real reality they will not win the election.
We will never know because this strategy has yet to be tried. This is because 'political reality' is code for State capture. The problem we have is not that the Coalition has sold its soul to the fossil fuel companies and so we need to elect Labor. The problem is that all three of our major parties - Liberal, Labor, Nationals, the ones with the resources and party infrastructure to form a national government - have been equally captured. Labor are just as dependent on fossil fuel donors, and favourable coverage from at least some of our fossil-fuel-infested mainstream media, as the Coalition. The only people who are free of this capture are those like the Greens and the Voices Of independents who don't get fossil fuel donations and rely on the support of local communities and networks.
You might be tempted to give way to despair (indeed, this is very tempting) but resisting temptation has a long and honourable pedigree. I think this story tells us three things.
1. A Labor Government will be a little bit better than a Coalition Government, so in a world of sub-optimal alternatives by all means, let's at least have a Labor Government.
2. As voters we have excellent options to resist the process of State capture by giving the major parties the flick wherever possible. Don't be a dill and vote for destructive minor parties like One Nation or the Clive Palmer Show, because they will be worse. Vote for the Greens, or for a responsible independent like Zali Steggall or Helen Haines or the various other candidates supported by Climate 200. None of these people and organisations is perfect, but at least they are not captured by the fossil fuel industries and if they get the balance of power in the next parliament they will push the major parties closer to real reality.
3. Don't rely on politicians. Stay active. Keep writing to the people who are supposed to represent you, collaring them at their meet-and-greet events, waving banners outside their offices. Keep picketing coal facilities and blocking roads if that is your thing. Don't let them forget for a minute that they are being watched and their actions compared to real reality. Keep talking to your friends and family, posting on social media, even blogging. If we want our planet to remain livable, we need to recapture our State from the fossil fuel industries and re-orient it towards real reality.
It won't be easy, but 'nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight'. So fight on!
Comments