October 28, 2006
After playing down the effects of climate change for years, the Federal Government has suddenly changed its tune, writes Wendy Frew.
For Matthew Nott, it all started on New Year's Day. Across the state, near-record temperatures drove many people indoors, demand for electricity soared as air-conditioning units were switched on and railway tracks buckled in the heat.
At Tathra Beach, 20 minutes east of Bega on the South Coast, where Nott had gone to cool off, the temperature had soared to 42 degrees by 10am.
"I was reading Tim Flannery's The Weather Makers and I thought 'What a juxtaposition, this book about climate change and record temperatures'," says Nott, an orthopedic surgeon who moved to the Bega Valley six years ago with his family.
It was a juxtaposition he says changed his life. With no political or environmental experience before then, Nott has since spent his spare time researching climate change. He was disturbed by what he discovered: predictions from the world's leading scientists that man-made greenhouse gases being pumped into the atmosphere would dramatically alter the earth's climate, and evidence some of the changes were taking place.
Frustrated by a lack of government action on the problem, in May Nott rallied 3000 residents in the Bega Shire to form a human sign on Tathra Beach that read "Clean Energy for Eternity". From that event, a small group of activists was formed to encourage the local council to cut energy consumption in the shire and source some of its electricity from renewable energy. The group has started to talk to residents in the neighbouring shires of Eurobodalla and Snowy River about similar programs.
While grassroots groups like this one were springing up all over Australia, little was changing in the top political echelons.
The Howard Government remained a steadfast critic of the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement to tackle climate change, and argued any attempt to penalise greenhouse gas polluters would damage the economy. Government ministers continued to play down the link between climate change, urban water shortages and the widespread drought.
But suddenly, two weeks ago, the Government's tune appeared to change. The Prime Minister, who had long scoffed at the "gloomy predictions" about climate change, finally made the link between drought and global warming. "I don't think it alters my outlook on Kyoto, but it certainly emphasises that the world does have a problem with climate change," he said.
A few days later, he said climate change was a reason Australia should adopt nuclear power. Next up, the Foreign Affairs Minister, Alexander Downer, confessed that "a bloody hot day" in early October at the Port Elliot Show in his electorate near Adelaide crystallised his thinking on the issue.
This week, there was a flurry of Government announcements about clean energy: a $75 million grant for a solar power plant in regional Victoria and a backdown on a plan to abolish consumer rebates for solar energy were among them.
Was this a sudden change of heart from a Government derided by many for its "go slow" attitude on climate change? And if so, what prompted it?
An increasing sense of urgency about the devastation wrecked by the drought appears to be part of it. But political commentators, the Opposition and green groups say the Government's conversion is more rhetoric than real and is purely driven by public opinion.
"I think [the recent change] is utterly poll driven," says Greens senator Christine Milne. "In the federal budget, Costello did not once mention climate change and did not say the cost of the drought would blow out the budget.
"Two weeks ago Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane said [the climate change documentary] An Inconvenient Truth was "just entertainment" and Howard said we shouldn't exaggerate the link between climate change and the drought. Then, Friday week ago they suddenly changed their position," Milne says.
"The polling shows the Australian community have put two and two together and see that drought, more and hotter bushfires, the water shortage and climate change are all connected and they blame the Government for 10 years of inaction."
A Lowy Institute poll released in early October found 68 per cent of Australians believed climate change was a "critical threat" that should be immediately addressed, even if this involved significant costs. As the institute's executive director, Allan Gyngell, observed, "this has become mainstream; it's no longer just an issue for Greens and people dressed up in koala suits".
The Climate Institute of Australia's chief executive, Corin Millais, agrees public opinion, particularly in rural areas, was a key factor in what he sees as a change in Government rhetoric.
"It is the polling that has focused the Government's mind, more than any intellectual position on climate change," Millais says. "Climate change is on the [political] agenda. I think what the Government is now trying to decide is what [action] is palatable."
The Environment Minister, Ian Campbell, says claims the Government is only driven by the polls are unfair. He says the Government has been concerned about climate change for some time and remains open to new ideas about how to tackle it. However, he concedes things have changed a little recently and he attributes that to the Prime Minister being tuned in to public concerns.
"That is his great skill," says Campbell. "I don't think the Prime Minister has crossed the road to Damascus but he has picked up that climate change has become a mainstream issue … people are seeing a pattern here."
He defended the recent clean energy announcements, made under the Government's $500 million Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund, pointing out that the money had been allocated some time ago.
But energy experts and opposition parties described this week's announcement by the Treasurer, Peter Costello, of a $75 million grant for a solar power plant in regional Victoria as "short-term thinking" and a one-off. Greenpeace's energy campaigner, Mark Wakeham, welcomed the funding but said the company behind the plant had admitted it might not have gone ahead if it was not for a Victorian Government renewable energy support scheme and this highlighted the Federal Government's inadequate policies.
"If you are going to tackle climate change you need systemic change," says Wakeham. "You need a price on carbon … you need incentives for all renewable energy, not just funding for one project. "If that is the Government's response to climate change then we should be worried."
Labor's spokesman on the environment, Anthony Albanese, also welcomed the funding but questioned the timing of the announcement. "The Government is good at allocating money to funds and then making political decisions at politically convenient times," he says.
"But on the issue of climate change, we require a systematic response. We need to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. We need to have a significant increase in our Mandatory Renewable Energy Target . We need a national target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and we need to have a price on carbon by having a national emissions trading system."
Without a price on carbon pollution, coal will remain Australia's cheapest energy source, way ahead of solar, wind and even less-polluting gas-fired power. It will make it uneconomic for coal-fired power generators to adopt technology that eliminates greenhouse gases, if and when that proves feasible.
It will also mean that nuclear energy - being touted by Howard as a major way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions - will be too expensive. That point was recently conceded by the former Telstra boss Ziggy Switkowski, appointed by the Government to examine the future of Australia's nuclear sector.
Switkowski, who expects to report to the Government in a month, told the Herald: "Australia is blessed with a couple of things - very low-cost electricity because of access to coal and gas, and many centuries of coal supply available. Any comparison will be unfavourable for every alternative source in the absence of an explicit cost for carbon."
Business groups, particularly banks, investment and insurance companies, have been quietly lobbying the Government for just that kind of policy.
Westpac's group general manager for stakeholder communications, Noel Purcell, says it should be acknowledged that the Government has been working on projects addressing climate change for some time. However, he says recent advice it would have received on the worsening outlook for the drought, plus the shift in public sentiment about climate change, would have influenced its position.
Now, "the big issue is putting a price on carbon and that has to be confronted", says Purcell.
Just how seriously Australians view climate change could be demonstrated next Saturday at the Walk Against Warming marches to be held in capital cities.
The Nature Conservation Council director, Cate Faehrmann, who is helping organise the event, says the response so far has been "absolutely amazing" and far stronger than for last year's walk, which attracted 5000 people in Sydney. "We have handed out 100,000 flyers, we are getting lots of phone calls from people who want to help out, businesses have contacted us to help advertise the event. The people who are coming to the walk are desperate that it be successful and are willing to do their bit to make sure it is."
The heat is on
- Over the past decade, Australia's greenhouse pollution has increased 10 per cent. It is expected to increase by 17 per cent more by 2020.
- In 2003, energy production accounted for 68 per cent of that pollution, and by 2020. It is expected to have increased by 70 per cent from 1990 levels.
- 166 nations have ratified the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. Australia is not one of them.
- The Federal Government has allocated $500 million over 15 years to develop low greenhouse gas emission technology.
- Every year, it spends $790 million on aviation fuel concessions, and $1 billion on fringe benefit tax concessions for company cars. Transport is a major contributor to Australia's greenhouse pollution.
0 comments:
Post a Comment