My Daily Advertiser Op Ed column for this week

Just weasel words from COP28

The 28th meeting to deal with climate change was very much the 26th waste of time. This is because the meetings in Kyoto in 1997 and Paris in 2015 were not wastes of time. They only became so later, when many countries, including Australia, did not do what they said they would do.

Indeed, the COP28 agreement, though hailed as a breakthrough, wasn’t even an agreement, let alone a breakthrough.

The main issue with COP28 concerned how it would refer to the need to end the use of fossil fuels (oil, coal and gas). The wording of the final text that was painstakingly reached after extra time was an exercise in avoiding the elephant in the room, for it merely : “… calls on Parties to contribute to the following global efforts, in a nationally determined manner …”

Note that it didn’t say “phase out”, let alone ‘end’, as most of those involved had been arguing for. What it did say are just weasel words.

“The problem is not just the word “contribute” (as opposed to “do”). It’s not an agreement to contribute but an agreement to call on countries to contribute … “in a national determined manner”. That is, in whatever way you like,” wrote The New Daily.

The paragraph after the above phrase “calls on Parties to contribute to the following global efforts” says “(by) tripling renewable energy capacity globally and doubling the global average annual rate of energy efficiency improvements by 2030”, is also presented as a breakthrough.

But as noted British journalist George Monbiot said, “It doesn’t matter how many wind turbines you put up, it doesn’t matter how many solar panels you put up, unless you’re retiring fossil fuel infrastructure, unless you are legislating to leave coal oil and gas where it belongs, which is in geological strata, you are going to cook the planet.”

Australia has not legislated to leave coal and gas in the ground: in fact, it is approving new projects. We have legislated inadequate emissions-reduction targets that won’t be met.

Some will try and argue that’s alright because it doesn’t matter much what we do because it really only matters what the big polluters China, India, the US and Europe do, and whether Saudi Arabia and the other fossil fuel producers continue to lobby as successfully as they have been.

And like most other things in geopolitics, it will come down to what America and China do, but not in the way you might think. Indeed, China is positioning itself to control the supply of renewable energy and batteries when that time comes, and is succeeding. When the world is burning, China will be driving the fire engine.

The United States realised what’s going on a bit late and came up with the Inflation Reduction Act’s massive subsidies for renewable energy manufacture and electrification, but the problem is that the US is a democracy, and the Republicans  want to cut spending, which means there is a limit on what the US can do. China has no limit. Americans seem ready to install Donald Trump as President again, in which case everything to do with climate change would get cancelled and China would have a more or less free run.

Meanwhile, in Australia economist Ross Garnaut and Rod Sims, the former chairman of the ACCC, have created something called the ‘Superpower Institute’, to help Australia seize what they call “the extraordinary economic opportunities of the post-carbon world”. Basically, they are trying to get Australia to do what China has already done.

Their enthusiasm is admirable, and I wish them all success in turning Australia into a ‘renewable energy superpower’, but I think the investment required to compete with China is way beyond both the resources and the inclination of the Albanese government, or indeed any Australian government.

It’s not beyond the resources of Australia’s $3.5 trillion superannuation system, but while they’re investing a lot in renewable energy, the government would need to entice or force them to get behind that project.

There’s no reason why we can’t turn all our sunshine into a globally significant industry, such as we did with the luck of having a lot of coal and gas. But that needs capital and long consistent focus, and it’s a race against others who are on steroids.

My Daily Advertiser op Ed column for this week

Dutton’s appalling weaponisation of border protection

I’ll end the year by looking at key aspects of the major players in our federal parliament. First cab off the rank is Peter Dutton as leader of the Opposition.

The decision by the High Court and the arrival of a boat with 12 asylum seekers has enabled Dutton to let his fear mongering skills soar, and so it will be the focus of my column this week.

He has made it clear he thinks this is the start of an armada of boat arrivals despite the fact the Albanese Government is committed to boat turn-backs and offshore processing with no prospect for new boat arrivals to be re-settled in Australia.

“Few Australians would be aware of Dutton’s appalling record on border protection when in government. As Minister for Home Affairs, he allowed the unscrupulous to run riot with Australia’s visa system in a way that is completely unprecedented. The fact is real border protection is a lot more difficult than border protection rhetoric”, as Abul Rizvi wrote in Pearls and Irritations.

The advantage of the scare on boats is that if an armada does arrive, the Coalition can say they warned Australians and the Government. But like the boy who cried wolf, Dutton has been warning for years about an armada of boats. As he has never been held accountable for these warnings, he will happily continue to run scare campaigns on boats all the way to the next election.

On the High Court decision, Dutton’s response in Parliament was that the released detainees should be immediately returned to immigration detention. Either this reflects complete contempt for the High Court or Dutton thought no one would hold him accountable for proposing an obviously illegal action. His Home Affairs spokesperson, Senator James Paterson, was asked three times on the ABC Insiders program if he agreed with Dutton’s proposal. Three times Paterson refused to answer the question.

Dutton’s supporters in the right-wing media happily ignored the illegality of Dutton’s proposal and supported it as the right thing to do. In the era of Trump, contempt for the law is a badge of honour and Dutton’s supporters would not have cared that his proposal was illegal.

Dutton was right to criticise the Albanese Government for not having a plan to deal with the High Court over-turning a 20 year precedent. Nevertheless, the Government within days introduced new legislation that enabled it to use ankle bracelets, curfews, etc on the released detainees on a discretionary basis.

The Coalition immediately criticised that and demanded these requirements be made mandatory. The Albanese Government largely cavedin to these demands. Not surprisingly, this legislation has been immediately challenged in the High Court with a strong likelihood the High Court will either overturn the legislation or put its own interpretation on the legislation.

If that happens, no one will be happier than Dutton to see the Government trying to explain why the legislation failed even though it will have been overturned because of Dutton’s politically motivated demands.

Now that it has the details of the High Court decision, the Government has introduced legislation for a new preventative detention regime, which will allow the Minister to seek a court order to detain one or more of the released detainees if the Minister can convince the court that the person represents an unacceptable risk of committing a violent or sexual offence in the future.

Just a few of these people being put back in detention for a relatively short period will be totally insufficient for Dutton. He has made it clear he wants all of the released detainees back in detention until they can be removed from Australia. While he would know that such legislation would inevitably be overturned by the High Court, he will not care less. Just being able to pretend to the Australian public that he is a tough guy on border protection will be sufficient.

Dutton will know the vast majority of these people will never be removed from Australia and are likely to live in the Australian community for the rest of their lives. Unfortunately he’ll ride this weapon right through to the next federal election.