Climate scientists sometimes talk about moments when the “signal emerges from the noise” – when the human influence on heatwaves and downpours becomes greater than what could have been caused by natural changes alone.
The same might be said for Australia’s reborn attempts to formulate a climate policy. Sometimes the noise that surrounds the debate is so great that it can make the underlying signal about where we’re going hard to find. But the signal is there.
There has been no shortage of hyperbole since the Albanese government struck a deal with the Greens and independents last week to pass its changes to the safeguard mechanism.
If properly enforced it will finally stop industrial greenhouse gas emissions in Australia from rising, add new costs to fossil fuel developments to make some less economically viable and create an incentive for industries needed beyond 2050 to clean up their act.
The Coalition’s climate change spokesperson, Ted O’Brien, says these relatively modest changes – a bare minimum of what is needed to reach a zero emissions future – will “decapitate the economy”. It’s a ridiculous line, drawn from a narrowcasted worldview, that is at odds with most of the business community. It ignores compelling evidence that a majority of voters are ahead of the parliament on climate and could back more ambitious action, not less.
At the other end of the spectrum are some critics of the safeguard mechanism who have argued that industry support for the policy shows it is weak and not up to the task.
Let’s be clear: there are unresolved issues with the government’s policy that won’t go away on their own. There is a potentially significant problem with its reliance on carbon offsets, which have routinely failed to provide what has been promised and demand ongoing scrutiny and action. The targets to cut emissions will need to become more ambitious.
But those who believe it would be better if steel, cement and aluminium manufacturers – businesses we need, but in a cleaner form – were complaining about being punished, rather than supporting progressively deeper emissions cuts, might want to rethink what the goal is and the level of community support that will be required to get there.
Both sides of the street?
The future of fossil fuels – new coal and gas developments – is an entirely different question.
The past week has seen teeth-gnashing that, shock horror, the passage of climate legislation may actually have ramifications for new coal and gas developments. As Graham Readfearn explained, some media commentary appears immune to the pretty straightforward idea that climate policy is supposed to cut emissions. That means less extraction and burning of the main cause of the problem. Substantially less, if it is to prove a genuine success. Scientific evidence says developed countries should have stopped new fossil fuel developments years ago.
The strongest rhetoric from the fossil fuel industry has come from the chief executive of the Japanese oil and gas giant Inpex, Takayuki Ueda, who told a private function at parliament house last week that he feared Australia was “quiet quitting” liquified natural gas (LNG) exports. He said it could result in “a direct threat to the rules-based international order essential to the peace, stability and prosperity of the region, if not the world”. Ueda was supported by Japan’s now departing ambassador to Australia, Shingo Yamagami.
I suspect for many people this plays as an attempt at cartoon-villain heavying of MPs. Australia exports about three-quarters of the gas it extracts, export contracts are in place years in advance and the government has not banned new gas fields, despite evidence that it should and could. And Inpex is doing more than OK. Its $60bn Ichthys LNG development in Darwin has routinely not paid tax in Australia despite revenue in the billions.
There is a broader backdrop to Ueda’s comments, though. Japan is conscious it is reliant on imported energy in an increasingly turbulent world. Nearly 50% of its energy comes from coal and gas, and it gets 70% of its coal and 40% of its gas from Australia. The Japanese government has promised to cut emissions by 46% by 2030 and net zero by 2050, but has made limited progress in building the nuclear, solar and offshore wind it will need. It is held back by intransigence from an establishment hooked on fossil fuels. It should be doing much more. But the country’s concern about what lies ahead is real.
If we were to be generous, we might conclude Japan is confused by the conflicting noises it is hearing from the Australian government. On the one hand, Labor says it is acting on the climate crisis by cutting emissions from industrial developments, including by adding costs that will affect export projects. On the other, it says export developments are not its concern and it won’t stand in their way.
The two don’t really add up. They reflect a government trying to straddle multiple constituencies, internally and externally.
Over the past week there have been claims and counterclaims about the impact of the safeguard mechanism on new gas development. Depending on who you listen to, plans to develop the Northern Territory’s “carbon bomb” Beetaloo Basin have either hit a major roadblock or are basically unaffected. The same goes for other projects.
The reality is the extent to which the policy will affect announced fossil fuel investments is unclear and will be worked through project-by-project. It is a messy picture.
But there is a signal beneath the noise, and it is bigger than just the safeguard. Future fossil fuel proposals are increasingly unlikely to win the financial and community backing they need. Clean projects are becoming more attractive. There have been noteworthy announcements in both directions this week.
It is not happening fast enough and the fight over the pace of change will continue. The revamp of the safeguard should be seen as just one more push in that direction.
