Do The Maths
The people who urge australia to ‘do more’ about climate change are curiously vague about the cost of their supposed actions. By Nick Cater.
We don't yet know if the drought has been broken. But few rainstorms in my have been as welcome as those that fell this week.
Calls for Australia to do "more" to fight climate change will not be dampened by the change in the weather. Neither should they in a nation of people who, in Robert Menzies’ words, strive to do their best and make that best better.
Nevertheless, we are entitled to ask do-more advocates some salient questions. What precisely is the more they would have us achieve and how we can achieve it within the constraints imposed by the state of technology and the economy?
Aspiration without strategy is not a policy.
Those who demand more of Scott Morrison's government than the Paris agreement requires must first demonstrate how the economic, technological and political challenges can be overcome.
The work of Dr Brian Fisher which the Menzies Research Centre had a hand in promoting last year should be compulsory reading.
Fisher's modelling demonstrated the exponential rise in cost that comes with increasing emissions targets. The voting public understand that they will bear the brunt of faster emission reductions in wages, jobs and living costs, which is why a clear majority rejected Labor's un-costed 45 per cent 2030 target.
The technology that will reduce emissions within the target period is also far from clear. Some see a future for nuclear, a case Senator Alex Antic explores this week. The cold reality, however, is that while fourth generation nuclear shows promise, it is not yet scalable and its economics remain unknown.
The immediate future is gas, which has far greater emissions reduction potential than we previously imagined when partnered with renewable energy. State government imposed constraints on the domestic gas market, however, are holding back investment in gas and, perversely, prolonging our reliance on coal.
We hope their position changes and the moratoria in NSW, Victoria and parts of South Australia are removed. These are not matters, however, over which the federal government has control. Its calculations are based on what is, rather than what might be.
Advocates of greater action should not skate lightly over the political challenge, nor lightly dismiss the constraints of the mandate the federal government won to meet our Paris target without causing unnecessary economic and social pain.
Polling published by the MRC before the election showed those who wanted to go beyond our Paris targets were in a minority. In fact, there were more people who wanted the opposite: to pull out of the Paris agreement.
A clear majority of voters stood between those two positions, supporting the Paris target but rejecting more drastic action.
Even if the do-more advocates can find a path through the economic, technological and political obstacles, a salient question will still need addressing: What will doing more actually achieve? How will it help reach the ultimate objective of keeping rising temperatures in check when Australia is responsible for a diminishing proportion of global emissions, currently at around 1.3 per cent?
If it is a question of first-world leadership, Australia is already playing its part by halving our per-capita emissions and drastically reducing the carbon intensity of its economy.
If the reason for doing more is to appeal to voters in green-tipped, suburban electorates or to appease the strident voices within the media, they should tread carefully. When morality is made absolute, there are no prizes for those with only moderately pregnant policies. Experience shows they are hated all the more.
Having invested heavily in researching energy policy in the past three years, the MRC considers the government’s settings to be correct. The recent agreements with the states over gas provide further evidence of Energy Minister Angus Taylor's clear thinking and determination.
The extent and causes of climate change are matters over which members of the broad Liberal church may still want to debate.
That should not affect our agreed national response, however, in a commitment to the international community ratified by the electorate.
Our target is a 26 per cent reduction on 2005 level emissions by 2030. The PM says we'll romp it home, and we probably will. Anything more, however, is a bonus, not an obligation.