Billions slipping through our fingers

Business Spectator
Wednesday 28/4/2010 Page: 1
28 Apr 2010

It may take until the next election to judge if the decision to abandon attempts to forge a sensible climate policy and a carbon price for another three years is sound politics. But two things should already be abundantly clear: it's not good for the environment and it's very bad for business.

Exactly what's at stake for the business community was made clear earlier this year by US Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, the co-sponsor of a now stalled bipartisan attempt to forge consensus on climate policy in Congress: "Six months ago my biggest worry was that an emissions deal would make American business less competitive compared to China," he said in a now often quoted remark. "Now my concern is that every day that we delay trying to find a price for carbon is a day that China uses to dominate the green economy." There's no reason to suppose it's any different for Australian business.

A survey produced by the UN Environment Program and the think-tank AccountAbility last week estimated the low carbon economy was likely to generate revenues of several trillion dollars by 2020, and any country wanting a share of that market would need to develop the appropriate policy settings.

The survey found that nearly half of the 95 countries that make up 97% of global economic activity had actually strengthened their climate change and clean energy policies despite the failure of Copenhagen. Chief among these were China, of course, along with South Korea, Japan and a host of European nations.

But, it noted, in North America and Australia, "there is a telling mismatch between citizen concerns and price signals, and divergent views within the business community and in politics." Little wonder, then, that in compiling a list of the top ten green giants in the global economy, the US-based website Greentech Media earlier nominated the Chinese Communist Party in number one position. Positions 2 to 10 were filled with the likes of General Electric, Siemens, Nissan, Wal-Mart, Cisco, Veolia, Dow Chemical and Panasonic - all well established sprawling conglomerates.

This is the key difference between the cleantech boom and the internet boom that preceded it. As Greentech Media noted, green technology essentially involves revamping the physical infrastructure of the modern world: replacing coal-fired power plants with wind turbines, building homes from materials concocted in chemistry laboratories, and swapping out engines for electric motors. It said established companies are simply in a far better position to muster the capital, technological depth, managerial expertise and factory capacity that will all be needed to make the transition.

What they all want and demand of their governments is the policies that can facilitate that transformation. China has no such inhibitions, but other countries rely on a political accord and market-based incentives. The fact that Australian business has been so poorly served on the policy front was lamented by Origin Energy CEO Grant King earlier this month, when he correctly predicted that Australian politicians did not have the stomach for the debate and any policy initiatives would be effectively on hold for another electoral cycle.

That's bad for business because not only does it not provide any motive for transformation - an issue highlighted by the report by the Grattan Institute last week - it also means that no long term decisions on energy infrastructure can be made, and any attempts to meet Australia's renewable energy and emission reduction targets would only be achieved with quick-fix and more expensive solutions - raising costs for the public and undermining the competitiveness of Australian business.

As Business Spectator noted as far back as May last year, the Rudd government has sought to play wedge politics with its climate policy, but in the end managed to wedge itself and Australian business, who now have no tools whatsoever to drive the investment they know they need to make.

But Australian business can hardly complain. They have only been visible when industry groups and lobbyists for the heaviest emitters generated scare campaigns in their fight for increased compensation, which in itself will likely to prove futile given the likely shape of the next parliament. There has been precious little of the coordinated campaigns such as the US Climate

Action Partnership, a coalition of bodies including green groups and big business such as GE, GM, Ford, Shell and Siemens. Australia, as the world's largest emitter per capita, has the most to do and the least time to lose. But it hasn't even had the strength of purpose to deal with the easy bits yet.