My Daily Advertiser Op Ed column for Tuesday 30 November 2021

Morrison chasing the votes of right-wing extremists

Recent weeks have seen an upsurge in protests related to COVID-19 issues. Some of them were violent. Sparked by the Melbourne protest against the controversial but necessary Pandemic Bill, they were comprised of a variety of right-wing demonstrators, including of course anti-vaxxers and the anti-lockdown brigade.

Worryingly they also included extreme right-wing groups such a Q Annon, Neo-Nazis, and others espousing antisemitism.

There is no argument that we all have the right of freedom of expression and the right to protest safely.

However, as noted by The New Daily “Who wants their children seeing gallows, complete with three nooses, in our streets and to hear threats to kill our political leaders or indeed images likening them to Adolf Hitler?”

So Morrison was guilty of double-speak when he pretended to condemn the violent Melbourne protests while at the same time excusing the protesters by saying that “People are tired of politicians telling them what to do and it was time for governments to step back”. Later in the column I’ll examine the irony of Morrison’s about-face on individual freedoms. 

But firstly, there are two main issues to un-pick here. To begin, the growing prevalence of extreme right-wing groups, and then, the issue of Morrison’s ambiguity.

The extreme far-right was once considered a lunatic fringe in Australia.  Terror expert, Professor Greg Barton at Deakin University, said that’s not the case anymore.

Those on the far-right are now much more closely aligned with global populism. Professor Barton noted that under Donald Trump terror attacks by far-right extremists increased two-fold in the US.

And Australia’s political leaders need to heed the lessons of the US. The rhetoric of Scott Morrison in the past few days is akin to playing with fire, according to Professor Barton.

Only a very small percentage of those protesting in Melbourne are from the far-right, it’s true. It’s also true that what is publicly known about far-right extremists in Australia is limited.

Victorian Greens leader Samantha Ratnam says the “growing threat of the far-right and neo-Nazi extremism” must be urgently investigated by the Victorian Parliament. The Greens have a motion before the Parliament which she hopes will be debated in the next sitting week.

Victorian Trades Hall Council secretary Luke Hilakari is also on the record as saying there needs to be a royal commission into the far-right in Australia.

All very true, but meanwhile, the motivation for Morrison’s Trump-like double-speak is in urgent need of analysis, especially as he has now entered into election mode.  

Anthony Albanese, the federal opposition leader accused Morrison of sounding like Donald Trump and the West Australian Premier accused him of dog-whistling to anti-vaxxers.

Morrison’s response to the protests should have been unequivocal. Given the thin line between political disaffection, rising extremism and lethal violence we’ve seen in Britain, Europe and the United States, a cautious prime minister focused on governing (as opposed to constant campaigning) would be minded to send an unequivocal message about boundaries, and responsible civic behaviour.

But Morrison knows the Coalition is at risk of losing votes to right-wing protest parties, so he’s executed an abrupt shape-shift. A prime minister who is demonstrably comfortable with intervention across a range of fronts now empathises with those frustrated by government COVID safety measures, declaring that government has to get out of people’s faces, noted Katherine Murphy in the Guardian Australia.

Keep in mind that this is the same prime minister who shut the international border and prevented Australian citizens returning home, who put the economy into hibernation and funnelled out billions in fiscal support, and who in fact created the need for lockdowns by failing to secure sufficient vaccine doses back in 2020.

Indeed, Morrison is the prime minister who demanded a vaccination mandate for aged care workers, who fronted the lockdowns, and read out lists of detailed restrictions about, for example, hairdressers, ballet classes and density limits. He is the prime minister who repelled the libertarians within his own party’s ranks by declaring he would save lives and livelihoods.

How does all the pivoting,inconsistency and naked opportunism help him?

Quite simply, the clear message that Morrison’s shape-shifting sends voters is that Australia’s prime minister is fixated on saving one (political) life in particular. His own. But will the electorate see through his pandering to right-wing extremist to realise what he is really up to?

He is of course chasing the votes of right-wing extremists to stop them going to the likes of Clive Palmer and Pauline Hanson, while at the same time saving his own political skin.

My Daily Advertiser Op Ed column for Tuesday 23 November 2021

Glasgow Climate Pact will not do enough

Now that the COP26 UN climate talks in Glasgow have finished and the headlines have disappeared, it is time for some unhurried assessment of what the Glasgow Climate Pact (GCP) actually achieved.

Has it saved the planet from climate change disaster, or, in the words Greta Thunberg, was it just a lot of “Blah, blah, blah”?  

The United States climate envoy John Kerry said it will bring the world closer than it has ever been to the goal of limiting temperature rises to 1.5C, while the Guardian columnist George Monbiot called the deal a “suicide pact”. “This is not good enough” said Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young.

Climate Action Tracker revealed that even if all COP26 pledges are met the planet is on track to warm by 2.1C.

COP26 President Alok Sharma broke down during the last day of the conference, reported the ABC, apologising over a last-minute alteration to the text of the agreement.

The change, which was led by India and China, watered down the commitments regarding coal, replacing “phase out” with “phase down”. More on this issue below.

So, are the nay-sayers right or is John Kerry being overly optimistic? Let’s analyse the actual outcomes to find out.

Firstly, there was some progress on cutting emissions, but nowhere near enough

The Paris Agreement said temperatures should be limited to “well below” 2C above pre-industrial levels, and countries should “pursue efforts” to limit warming to 1.5C.

Before COP26, the world was on track for 2.7C of warming based on commitments by countries, and expectation of the changes in technology.

Announcements at COP26, including new pledges to cut emissions this decade, by some key countries, have however only reduced this to a best estimate of 2.4C, the New Daily reported.

A world warming by 2.4C is still clearly very far from 1.5C, and will lead not just to higher temperatures and devastating climate disasters such as floods and fires, but to many parts of the world becoming uninhabitable.

However, there is the possibility of further cuts in the near future, for the final text of the GCP requests that countries come back next year with new updated plans that will address toughening up targets for 2030, rather than focussing in 2050.

The above-mentioned outcome that the use of coal should be phased down, as should subsidies for fossil fuels, is at least a step in the right direction.

But the wording is weaker than the initial proposals, with the final text calling for only a “phase down” and not a “phase out” of coal, due to India’s last-second intervention.

However, this is the first time fossil fuels have been mentioned in a UN climate talks declaration. It is an important shift that breaks the taboo of talking about the end of fossil fuels.

Nonetheless, phasing something down is a far cry from ending it, and the continued use of any fossil fuels, however ‘phased down’ they might be, would still keep the planet warming by 2.4C^.

Another problem with the GCP is that rich countries continued to ignore their historical responsibility.

Small island states and climate-vulnerable countries say the historical emissions of the major polluters have caused these impacts, and therefore funding is needed.

Developed countries, led by the USA and the EU, have resisted taking any liability for these loss and damages, and vetoed the creation of a new “Glasgow Loss and Damage Facility” called for by most countries.

To sum up, as The Guardian explained, “Coal is the dirtiest fossil fuel, and the International Energy Agency has made clear that if it is not rapidly phased out the world has no hope of staying within 1.5C of global heating”.

Unfortunately, Australia has welcomed this watered-down agreement. Resources Minister Keith Pitt called it an economic win, saying it meant Australian mines wouldn’t have to close.

Energy and Emissions Reduction Minister Angus Taylor issued a defiant statement making it clear the government would be committing to nothing more ambitious than its existing 2030 goal, which is a meagre 26-28% below 2005 levels. Compare that with the US’s cut of 50%.

No doubt Messrs Taylor and Pitt are beating the election drum already underway. Let’s hope they get a rude awakening when the electorate votes to save the planet. After all, national polls show an overwhelming majority of Australians want a far stronger climate change policy.

My Daily Advertiser Op Ed column for Tuesday 16 November 2021

State governments lead the way to net zero

The Morrison government’s climate action plans continue to deceive us. The net zero emissions plan he took to the COP26 conference contained no detail, no modelling, and no new policies. Last week he followed up with a disappointingly underwhelming electric vehicles (EVs) plan.

Then came the announcement to invest $500m into a new $1bn fund to help commercialise low-emissions technology, including carbon capture and storage. This is a typical Morrison untruth, for that is taxpayer funds he is spending, despite his tired old mantra of ‘technology, not taxes’. He also ignores the plain fact that carbon capture and storage is unproven technology that most expert tell us simply won’t work.  

So it has been refreshing to read of an alternative but very real world in which the politicians have got their acts together.

In NSW government policies are set to drive uptake of EVs, with NSW setting a target of 50% of new car sales by 2030, the Saturday Paper reports.

In a more meaningful way, the Labor-Greens government in the Australian Capital Territory are joining with conservative governments in South Australia and New South Wales to form the Net Zero Emissions Policy Forum, Crikey reported.

“Taking action on climate change is an economic and environmental imperative, and this is about ensuring states and territories are working together to address it,” said NSW treasurer and energy minister Matt Kean.

The plan is that ultimately other “sub-national” level governments around the world will join the forum. As ACT Chief Minister and Minister for Climate Action Andrew Barr puts it, “Sub-national governments have a vital role to play in getting to net zero emissions because we have some of the most important levers such as transport, buildings and energy”.

The ACT’s Labor-Greens administration and the Coalition and Liberal Party governments in New South Wales and South Australia said their collaboration, known as the net zero emissions policy forum, would help sub-national jurisdictions address the practical challenges of achieving net zero.

The step is the latest taken by lower levels of government in the absence of stronger action by the federal government, and comes ahead of a cities and regions day at the COP26 climate conference in Glasgow.

The announcement follows widespread criticism of the Morrison government’s net zero plan that relies on unspecified technology breakthroughs, global trends, and carbon offsets for more than a third of the abatement task, the Guardian Australia reported.

The states and territories involved hope that other sub-national governments around the world will join the group, which will share policies and resources and work together to speed up the transition.

“Taking action on climate change is an economic and environmental imperative, and this is about ensuring states and territories are working together to address it,” said Matt Kean.

“Greenhouse gas emissions do not recognise borders, and to tackle climate change we need a globally collaborative approach and that is what this forum is about.”

The ACT’s chief minister and minister for climate action, Andrew Barr, said the forum members were calling on their colleagues in other state and regional governments to take decisive action to address the climate crisis.

“Sub-national governments have a vital role to play in getting to net zero emissions because we have some of the most important levers such as transport, buildings and energy,” he said.

South Australia’s minister for environment and water, David Speirs, said they were encouraging other sub-national governments to join “and help create the low carbon jobs and industries of the future while making sure we leave a better planet to our children and grandchildren”.

The forum is an initiative of the Under2 Coalition, which aims to bring together sub-national governments which aim to cut greenhouse gas emissions. It will be directed by a ministerial group, which NSW will chair for the first 12 months.

The Morrison government still has the same 2030 emissions target, a 26-28% cut, set under Tony Abbott six years ago. Scientists say global emissions need a much deeper cut to keep alive the possibility of limiting global heating to 1.5C.

The Greens policy of reaching net zero emissions by 2030 is the only one put forward by any party represented at both state and national levels to seriously address the issue. 

My Daily Advertiser Op Ed column for Tuesday 9 November 2021

Failure of G20 bodes ill for COP26

As I write this the COP26 climate conference is not yet over. I will save my commentary until it concludes, but my early misgivings about it succeeding to save the world from climate catastrophe were not allayed by the recent G20 meeting in Rome, which was billed as being about the world’s climate and health.Though it did offer some meagre help to the global south in the form of increased COVID19 vaccine supplies it failed to agree on climate goals. As many of us had hoped it would be the harbinger of pre-Glasgow good news, its failure will be my topic this week.The G20 was planned to lay the groundwork ahead of the COP26 UN summit in Glasgow, the Sydney Morning Herald reported. However the official statement released afterwards didn’t even mention net zero by 2050. Nor was there any target set for phasing out coal. The ABC noted that this was a “clear nod” to big carbon polluters China and India.Even British PM Boris Johnson said the G20 meeting didn’t bode well for COP26. He said that promises were “starting to sound hollow” and that the commitments were “drops in a rapidly warming ocean”.To make the G20 outcome even gloomier Prime Minister Scott Morrison used his final G20 remarks to defend our climate policy amid tense international scrutiny, the Guardian Australia said. His final remarks at the summit argued against the abolition of fossil fuels, for example, The Saturday Paper reported. He also pushed back against mandating action by other countries, the SMH noted, and stressed technology would solve climate change, comparing the mostly as-yet uninvented tech variously to smartphones, silicon chips, and COVID-19 vaccines. He rejected calls to set the date on ending coal-fired power stations.In more detail the G20 summit wound up with a communique that did not include a firm commitment to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050, and had only a vague commitment to “phasing out investment in new unabated coal power-generation capacity … as soon as possible”. To our shame, Morrison pushed back at coordinated global efforts to phase out fossil fuels.In his final remarks at the G20, Morrison defended his government’s climate policies in the face of sustained domestic and international criticism.While several G20 countries including the US and UK have pushed Australia to step up its ambition for 2030, Morrison told his peers: “Australia has already reduced its emissions by more than 20% on 2005 levels, which is more than most of the countries sitting around this table.”He said Australia was investing heavily in the development of new technologies “to achieve the goals that our own modelling shows will move the dial and make a net zero economy achievable, not just in Australia, but in India, Indonesia, Vietnam, Brazil and South Africa.”Morrison also told his G20 peers that Australian investments in technology are focused on storage, sequestration, industrial processes and climate adaptation. He said many of the technologies existed now, but he acknowledged that some of the methods preferred by Australia in its net zero strategy were not yet in existence, the Guardian Australia reported.While experts say the transition to carbon neutrality requires not only technological solutions to lower emissions but also clear targets, policies and mechanisms that allow price signals facilitating efficient investment during the transition, Morrison declared in Rome that “technology at cost and scale is the answer”.A number of countries, including Australia, resisted firm pledges to phase out coal. The draft communique only committed nations to “phase out and rationalise” fossil fuel subsidies by 2025 and curb coal power. But this was far less than hoped.Indeed, Morrison signalled that Australia would have a significant problem with communique language hastening the demise of the coal industry. China and India were also among the countries opposed to specific commitments.While the government’s political mantra for its climate policies is “technology not taxes”, its preferred approach to managing the transition is bankrolled by significant taxpayer-funded expenditure. How the media fails to use this to point out that the “technology not taxes” mantra is built on such a massive lie is quite beyond me. Let’s hope the voting public wakes up before the next federal election.

My Daily Advertiser Op Ed column for Tuesday 2 November 2021

The point of COP26 is 2030, not 2050

When Morrison flew off to Glasgow for the COP26 climate summit he entered an arena where net zero by 2050 is a given. Instead, the focus is on achieving serious cuts by 2030. This is because that’s what the science and the economic imperatives demand.

“While all the frenzied political debate in Australia has hinged around 2050, in Glasgow all the substantive focus will be on 2030 – a reality that amply demonstrates just how Australia stubbornly lags the global reality” wrote Katherine Murphy in the Guardian Australia.

Thankfully not all federal politicians are blind to these facts. Australian Greens leader Adam Bandt said the point of the Glasgow summit was “action by 2030, not 2050”. Matt Kean, NSW Treasurer and Environment Minister said on The Insiders on ABC TV he would like to see Morrison take “an ambitious 2030 commitment” to Glasgow.

Though many countries are aiming for a 50% emissions reduction by 2030 Morrison & Co won’t move beyond the Abbott era target of a miserly 26-28 % of 2005 levels. Experts dismiss Australia’s 2050 net zero target as insignificant if it is not accompanied by stronger 2030 targets, which Morrison has ruled out.

Andrew Blakers, professor of engineering at the Australian National University and one of the world’s leading experts in renewable energy pointed out that there is simply no way we’ll meet the global goal set in Paris, of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 to 2 degrees, unless big commitments are made right now and big emissions reductions are made this decade. “We need an announced target, a hard, onerous target of 50 or 60 per cent – let’s say 50 per cent, which matches the US target – by 2030,” said Blakers.

Why is 2030 so important? As Alan Kohler wrote in The New Daily “The 1.5 degrees of warming (from the pre-industrial age) that was the preferred aim of the Paris conference in 2015, and is the clear aim of Glasgow, is all but unachievable”. Professor Will Steffen from the Australian National University, one of Australia’s top climate scientists, said it would take a miracle to hold warming to 1.5 degrees.

Greenhouse gas emissions hit a record high last year, according to the UN, and if things continue at this rate, global warming will surge far past 1.5C, causing huge climate catastrophes. Carbon dioxide levels are now 50% higher since 1750 and methane levels have doubled, the Guardian Australia said. The ABC reported that the UN’s Petteri Taalas described efforts as “way off track” and urged a “dramatic increase” in climate commitments at the upcoming Glasgow summit.

Driving home that point, a paper published in the journal Nature this month said the world would see 2.9 to 3.2 degrees of warming, which would be catastrophic for human civilisation. Current promises and actions by countries to limit climate change are “by far insufficient” to meet the goal of the Paris Agreement to limit global temperature increase to well below 2 degrees Celsius.

If warming reaches 2 degrees, as now seems very likely, Will Steffen said temperatures of 50 degrees Celsius will become common in Sydney and Melbourne, and over 40 degrees would be routine.

The southern parts of the country will become drier and more prone to droughts, and so much less able to support grain crops. The Murray Darling Basin will come under a lot more stress than it already is. The argument over irrigation versus the environment will be moot.

There will be more severe, and more frequent, bushfires to the point where forests and their inhabitants will not be able to recover between them. Northern parts of Australia will be much wetter, with more flooding.

In other words, regional areas of Australia are going to be hit very hard, no matter what is decided in either Canberra or Glasgow, much harder than when the coal industry closes down.

In fact, Will Steffen said large parts of Australia will become uninhabitable and those living there will have to move.

So we really do need to get serious about 2030. I’m backing the Greens policy of net zero emissions by that date, but if Glasgow can reach agreement on a 50-70% reduction by then it will be at least a step in the right direction. However, will it be enforceable?