Today, we have a guest blogger who pretends to be Professor Scott Baum of Griffith University. He has been one of my regular research colleagues for a long time. Today, he followed my previous post- Financial markets should stay away from climate crisis solutions (November 10, 2021)-and discuss the failure of the Australian Federal Government to develop a viable net zero emissions plan. So, it ended Scott.
The government’s neoliberal climate plan: Capable capitalism will save us all
Recently, the Australian media has had a lot of discussions about the federal government’s participation in the entire COP26 fiasco in Glasgow.
I see that the United Nations Conference of Parties (COP) 26 is called by some people source):
A weird combination of rent seekers, followers and political fanatics.
Talk about it!
The Australian government’s involvement in the Glasgow prank became news early on when we asked the Prime Minister to refuse to leave.
SBS News Article (October 1, 2021) – Scott Morrison confirmed that he is unlikely to attend the UN Climate Summit in Glasgow – Claiming that he has spent a lot of time in quarantine after traveling overseas and that he does not want to be kept in a cabin for 14 days.
For context, the Lodge is a 40-room Australian Georgian Revival mansion located on “18,000 square meters (4.4 acres) of landscaped ground”
(Source: Wikipedia).
This is the prime minister’s residence in Canberra, a far cry from the standard hotel rooms that other people entering Australia must endure during isolation.
A few weeks later, under domestic and international pressure, the Prime Minister announced that he had changed his mind and would eventually hobble to Glasgow.
Then, like magic, the government issued– A plan to achieve net zero in the Australian way – An overview of how Australia will achieve net zero emissions by 2050.
This glamorous 20-page booklet fully illustrates the lack of government involvement in the entire incident.
Many pictures.
Many declarations of maternal love.
No action.
Obviously, this is the Australian way.
Between gloss and pictures, we learned that the Australian way is:
…A unique Australian plan because we face different challenges and opportunities compared to other countries.
The Australian way will focus on
…For Australia’s national interest, and to ensure our strength by deciding our own destiny.
Therefore, almost the government’s plan is to ignore what everyone else in the world is doing, ignore any international agreements that have been reached, the British Guardian article (October 30, 2021)- Australia broke the Paris Agreement and exposed itself as the worst climate hypocrite – Attention is the standard of the course.
The release of the “Plan to Net Zero: The Australian Way” document was accompanied by a lot of debate and outdated comments from our elected officials in Canberra.
There are many options, but this exchange between the media and our Federal Minister of Resources is one of my favorites.
We read in this article in the British Guardian (October 21, 2021)- Kuomintang MPs said that solar energy will not work in the dark because the political party has formulated a wish list to support the net zero goal – when:
…Was asked if he still thinks that wind, solar and battery technologies are not feasible, and whether investment in renewable energy brings a “warm and fuzzy feeling”… [the Minister replied] … Find me a solar panel that works in the dark.
And, gems like this:
I said to the person on the opposite side, are you seriously suggesting that when there is no sun, will solar energy work? This is just a basic fact.
Obviously, not everyone in Canberra participated in the “plan.”
When our government officials finally rushed to Glasgow, they were in trouble.
SBS News Report (November 3, 2021)- Australia criticizes the prominent display of fossil fuel companies at the COP26 booth – Notice that in front of the shiny booth in the exhibition hall in Australia is one of our fossil fuel companies, demonstrating their best carbon capture and storage technology (does anyone say it passed the green cleaning?).
In the comments of many prime ministers, the true meaning of the government plan became clear.
Coming out of Glasgow, we heard things like how our net zero goal (source):
… Frankly speaking, most people would not be in this room. Our scientists, our technical experts, our engineers, our entrepreneurs, our industrialists and our financiers will truly chart the path to net zero…
As government leaders, we have a responsibility to support them…
Our researchers, scientists, entrepreneurs, investors, and most importantly, our employees are ready. Australia’s approach is to bet on them-we think this is a good bet.
We also heard (source):
In Australia, our net zero journey was led by world-class Australian pioneer companies such as Fortescue, and led by Dr. Andrew Forrest, Visy, BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto, AGL and more companies of all sizes.
That is to say, our mining and heavy industry company.
Once safely back on the Australian soil, announcements continued to be intensive and rapid.
The government is promoting its latest catchy phrase “capitalism that can be done.”
This is an articulate government, not an action.
The Prime Minister announced to a group of so-called business leaders that in terms of reducing emissions, the government will (source):
…Supporting Australian businesses… “capitalism that can be done” in the private sector, rather than government policies, is essential to reducing carbon emissions… [and how] …Glasgow marked the passing of the baton from goals and timetables…to the private sector.
Therefore, the government’s emission reduction plan is solely to allow large companies to act in the country’s “best interest” when achieving our net zero emissions target.
It sounds like letting the fox guard the chicken coop.
Against this background, it is no wonder that Australia has fallen to 58th place in the world—— Climate Change Performance Index – Ranked last in terms of policies to deal with climate change.
The summary of Australia’s position in the Climate Change Performance Index report is not as glamorous as our emission reduction manual implies.
We read
The country’s performance in every CCPI category is rated as very low: greenhouse gas emissions, renewable energy, energy use, and climate policy.
The summary states that Australia’s plan shows:
No new policies and plans
Reading through the government’s plan, we see a series of things that the government has announced before, many of which have little to do with achieving net zero.
The Climate Change Performance Index report also pointed out:
The government does not have any policies on phasing out coal or natural gas, but CCUS (carbon capture and storage) and hydrogen are being promoted as low-emission technologies…
Experts believe that Australia has failed to realize its potential, and other countries have surpassed it. Despite subsidies for fossil fuel production and a “natural gas-led” economic recovery after COVID-19, insufficient infrastructure investment has exacerbated this failure to promote renewable energy.
Okay, so not good, but there are no surprises either.
It’s not that the Australian government has no plan, but that the plan is rubbish.
Neoliberals will love it.
The plan transfers most of the responsibility for reducing emissions from the government to Australian companies.
Capitalism can!
What problems may arise. After all, large companies are more efficient than governments. Large companies are run by people who have a sense of social responsibility for the best interests of the country, society, and the environment.
right? (Note: a big irony).
Do we need a neoliberal emission reduction plan?
In a word: no.
The government needs to tear up (or at least press to delete) its net zero emissions plan and start again.
Fortunately, there are many things they can do, which will greatly improve the “ideas” they currently collect.
First, the government’s plan should immediately include a decision to phase out fossil fuel production and develop a just transition strategy for the affected workers, regions, and communities.
We can learn about the possibility in this report from the Center for Full Employment and Equity (CofFEE) report back in June 2008- A just transition to a renewable energy economy in the Hunter region of Australia.
We know that:
If you switch from coal-fired power generation to a renewable energy economy, it will bring major benefits.
Therefore, researchers in this field (such as CofFEE’s team) have known this for many years.
The government should recognize the importance of scientific research in improving and developing innovative renewable energy solutions.
Instead of cutting university funding and sitting idly by when the university is forced to cut jobs and courses, it is better to provide a sufficient level of funding, at least to provide some real dollar growth.
Research centers such as CofFEE are always looking for funding, but they are still at the forefront of modern monetary theory (MMT) work and its applications to climate change and other issues.
Sufficient funding will enable the university to continue to innovate and develop (source):
New knowledge and skills, the ability to develop and use new technologies, and understand how technology and society interact…
Obviously, in terms of reducing and understanding carbon emissions, these
These are the key success factors that universities can contribute to in this ongoing process of change.
Second, the government should recognize that for some families, circumstances beyond their control severely weaken their ability to participate in energy-saving solutions.
It is good to think that families will get better and will not be affected by the new tax, but understanding that there is an important dimension of social justice that is overlooked is another (source).
Third, the government should ensure that sufficient and accurate information and education are provided to counteract the “fake news and intimidation” surrounding most of the debate.
We don’t need our elected officials and others to comment, such as (source):
Find me a solar panel that works in the dark… [or] … the goal of energy and electric vehicles will stifle the economy, end meat raffles, sausage sizzling, and even the weekend itself.
The mention of weekend damage is related to electric vehicles, and the government claims that electric vehicles will weaken our ability to tow boats and other objects (motorboats, etc.) to weekend playgrounds.
We deserve more adult debate and comment than this!
These are some things, but they are a good starting point.
in conclusion
It is ridiculous to think that the major producer organizations of carbon emissions will suddenly become our darlings.
The government needs to get rid of its company-led neoliberal emission reduction plan and adopt policies and plans that are beneficial to the country.
That’s enough for today!
(c) Copyright 2021 William Mitchell. all rights reserved.
