Missing the target
after its defeat in last year’s election the labor opposition appears reluctant to state a clear position on energy policy. By Tim James.
The government is getting on with the job on climate and energy policy consistent with its election commitments and mandate.
Meanwhile, other parties and parliamentarians are ditching positions or demanding the impossible.
Let’s firstly recall the positions taken to the so-called climate election just 16 months ago.
On an emissions reductions target to 2030 the positions were abundantly clear:
The Coalition committed to a 26-28% reduction on 2005 levels.
Labor committed to a 45% reduction.
The Greens committed to a 63 – 82% reduction.
Zali Steggall originally committed to a 60% reduction later wound back to “at least 45%”.
The only one of these four still holding to its position is the Coalition. It’s acting consistently and clearly. The Coalition signed the Paris Accord, committed to the target and is working to meet the target. Australia is meeting its global commitments. The government is right to maintain that the target is a fair contribution for Australia and rightly argues that it exceeds the targets of other countries on a per capita basis as well as in terms of emissions intensity.
These positions back then (and likely still now) enjoyed strong public support. About 70% public support according to polling conducted for the Menzies Research Centre.
Such consistency of position is in line with the natural desire of people and business to have as much certainty and predictability in policy making as can be.
It’s also timely to recall that independent modelling last year by Australia’s leading climate and energy economist Brian Fisher showed Labor’s 45% emissions reduction and 50% renewables target would drive up wholesale power prices by 58%, cost the economy $472 billion, reduce real wages by $9,000 per household and slash 336,000 jobs.
Climate and energy policy became a millstone around Labor’s neck when it became clear it could not answer detailed questions arising from Dr Fisher’s report.
Remarkably now, Labor is not committing to the Paris target nor any other 2030 target, according to the Labor policy platform leaked this week.
Subsequent statements from Labor MPs support that platform as they have described a 2030 target as being irrelevant or redundant.
It’s a preposterous position and cynical stance given an even higher target was its election centrepiece only 16 months ago!
An already committed global target for ten years away is now a no-go zone for Labor. It’s a stunning turnaround confirming just how much Labor is all at sea on climate and energy policy.
It also points to the absurdity of their position which is to lock in for net zero emissions by 2050. A policy target without a clear pathway in thirty years time? Sure! But a 10-year target which is achievable and agreed by the nation and its people? Oh no!
All credibility gone for Labor.
The Greens position today is even more outlandish than it was just 16 months ago. In July amidst the Eden-Monaro by-election, the Greens locked into a 75% emissions reduction target by 2030 and net zero by 2035 calling them “Climate Emergency Targets”. Greens leader Adam Bandt spoke of a “Green New Deal” at the time calling for Eden-Monaro voters to give them the balance of power. There was no plan, detail or costing of these big policy shifts.
The Greens vote declined at the by-election. Voters are smart enough to distinguish between posturing and policy. In 2019 the Greens vote was 8.75%, in 2020 5.67%, a more one-third decline in votes. Shifting targets don’t amount to shifting votes in favour.
After shifting targets (from 60% to 45%) before the 2019 election, Warringah MP Zali Steggall is now committed to constant uncertainty by proposing legislation that would mandate new emissions reductions targets every five years and lock in net zero by 2050.
As the policy contrast becomes more clear, so too the choice for voters. Last time the voters chose certainty, achievable action and keeping our national commitments. Given the alternatives outlined above, why wouldn’t they do so once again?