The real reasons can’t get its climate change policy right THEY say it’s about price but here are the real reasons why politicians can’t get Australia’s energy policy right. CLIMATE change policy appears to be the biggest career killer for prime ministers of every political stripe. But why is it so hard to get it right? If you believe the pollsters, Australians actually support action on climate change. In June, the Lowy Institute’s survey of 1200 adults found 59 per cent thought “global warming is a serious and pressing problem” about which “we should begin taking steps now even if this involves significant costs”. Almost 84 per cent supported renewables even if this meant government investing more in infrastructure to make the system more reliable. Only 14 per cent thought the government should focus on traditional energy sources like coal and gas. Polling over the weekend in three marginal Liberal seats echoed this result and showed voters supported the Paris Agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In ’s seat of Dickson, 51 per cent did not think Australia should withdraw from the agreement, according to a ReachTEL poll published by Fairfax. This rose to 56 per cent in ’s seat of Reid and 62 per cent in ’s seat of Deakin. Yet Australia’s politicians have failed to develop a longstanding policy on what Kevin Rudd famously described in 2007 as “the great moral challenge of our generation”. Instead, the policy has been used as a political tool to assassinate at least three prime ministers. Last week was brought down for the second time over climate change policy. The first time he was rolled by as opposition leader. This time it cost him his job as prime minister. Mr Turnbull’s son Alex Turnbull told the ABC today that people who “own a lot of coal in the Galilee Basin (Queensland)” were exercising “undue influence on Liberal Party policy”. Here are the reasons climate policy is so hard to get right. WE ARE A COAL COUNTRY Australia is the world’s largest exporter of coal, according to the International Energy Agency, and the country is also a leading exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG). In 2015, about 40 per cent of Australia’s export income was related to energy. It’s a huge industry, with Australia’s coal exports in 2017 worth $56.5 billion, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. In 2014, the coal mining industry employed about 59,000 people. No wonder it has such a huge influence on the country. Professor of political science at the University of Robyn Eckersley said the close relationship between the coal industry and politics could be seen in the revolving door of political advisers who had previously worked for the mining industry, now working for senior politicians. Politicians have also found jobs in the industry after leaving politics, such as former resources minister Ian Macfarlane who took up a position at the Queensland Resources Council and Sophie Mirabella, who was hired by mining magnate Gina Rinehart as a lobbyist. In fact, new Prime Minister ’s new chief of staff, Dr John Kunkel, is the former deputy chief executive of the Minerals Council of Australia and also worked at Rio Tinto. His new environment minister Melissa Price, was a former lawyer for mining company Crosslands Resources Ltd. The new Energy Minister is anti-renewables campaigner and climate change sceptic Angus Taylor, who the PM has dubbed “the minister for getting energy prices down”. Last year Mr Morrison wielded a lump of coal during Question Time, declaring: “This is coal — don’t be afraid, don’t be scared.” “There’s this groupthink that what’s good for the minerals industry is good for Australia, and what’s good for Australia is good for the minerals industry,” Prof Eckersley told news.com.au. PEOPLE DON’T LIKE PAYING MORE One of the reasons given for taking down Mr Turnbull’s energy policy, the National Energy Guarantee, was that it didn’t focus enough on getting prices down for consumers. At a press conference earlier this month, former deputy prime minister said: “People in the Kmart, people in the local pub, they don’t care about the Paris Agreement. “What matters to them is this — that they can be able to afford their power bills and they currently cannot. It’s not about power prices staying where they are. They are too high. They’ve got to go down.” Under the leadership of Mr Abbott, Australia signed the Paris Agreement to reduce carbon emissions by 26-28 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030. But Mr Abbott is now lobbying for Australia to withdraw from the agreement. He has often argued against taking climate action if it meant increasing power prices, famously launching a scare campaign to bring down Julia Gillard’s “carbon tax”. While the Lowy Institute survey indicated there was majority support for taking action against climate change despite the costs, other surveys have showed some were worried about power prices. A Newspoll survey published in The Australian in October last year revealed 45 per cent of Australians surveyed would support abandoning the Paris Agreement if it lowered electricity prices. About 40 per cent said they didn’t support opting out of the agreement and 15 per cent were uncommitted. The reluctance to pay more is even more apparent if you look at One Nation voters. Among these voters, 70 per cent supported ditching the agreement if it led to lower electricity prices. But as the ACCC revealed in its report on the energy market there are many reasons why prices have risen, including that big companies have been allowed to dominate electricity supply in some areas, the “gold-plating” or over-investment in infrastructure and confusing bills leading to many customers paying more than they should. High gas prices have also not helped. In fact energy consultants Jacobs Group (Australia) found electricity prices would have been 10 per cent higher under the “business as usual” approach adopted by Mr Abbott, according to modelling undertaken for the Finkel review. It found introducing a Clean Energy Target or an Emissions Intensity Scheme would produce lower prices. Prof Eckersley said there was a “degree of dishonesty” from conservative forces about why they reject climate change action and focusing on the upfront cost to consumers was ignoring the costs of not acting.

IT’S IDEOLOGICAL While there’s a lot of talk about sticking up for Aussie battlers, Prof Eckersley said the Coalition seemed to acting based on economic ideology as well as being driven by nostalgia for the past. “I think the primary reason is ideological because most of the folk in the right wing of the Coalition, including those in the National Party and Tony Abbott’s group, they are educated people and rely on and accept science in many areas,” Prof Eckersley said. “They take scientific advice on health, the drought and expert advice on trade policy, so one has to ask, why do they continue to question climate science?” She said traditionally the Coalition was interested in small government, lowering taxes and reducing welfare, but climate change required corrective actions and a long-term view. Ideologically she said conservatives didn’t want big government, or a green take on industry. They see Australia’s interests as aligned with the mining industry. “Climate change action is diametrically opposed to conservative economic ideology,” she said. But instead of acknowledging this, Prof Eckersley said conservatives tend to deny the problem and not give it priority, which is what they were doing now in focusing on power prices. “They tend to focus on an argument that’s a political winner, like price,” Prof Eckersley said. “But that’s like putting all your cards on the table and only putting one card facing up. “They are only focusing on the upfront costs to consumers but there are many other costs to not acting on climate change.” Prof Eckersley said the conservatives should be asked why they didn’t think climate change was a problem worth responding to and to consider what the costs of not taking action were. “We need to know what the costs of action are, what the costs of inaction are and what are the co-benefits of action,” she said. She said there were enormous benefits being ignored that would come from restructuring the economy, plus the benefits that would come once there were enough renewables online backed up by a smart grid and storage. “There are co-benefits like new jobs, cheaper power in the long run and a good international reputation,” she said. “There is also moral argument — this is a generational and civilisational challenge which they are totally ignoring.”

WHERE ARE WE HEADED? After a dramatic week, Australians are now waiting to hear what the new Prime Minister will deliver in terms of energy policy. According to The Australian, Mr Morrison is under pressure to put fossil fuels at the heart of the government’s energy policy and this may involve building new coal-fired power stations. So far Mr Morrison has said he would continue with measures Mr Turnbull had already announced to reduce prices including measures that the ACCC suggested like putting a safety net on price, using a “big stick” to get companies to do the right thing and backing investment in new generation capacity. It’s unclear whether he will deliver another policy to reduce emissions. Despite support from major business and industry groups like the Business Council of Australia, National Farmers’ Federation, Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association and the Australian Energy Council, Mr Turnbull on Monday backed away from including the emissions reduction target as part of legislation for the National Energy Guarantee policy. Mr Abbott now wants Australia to also abandon its Paris Agreement target entirely. Mr Morrison said he would consult Cabinet about whether the NEG was still government policy — but it looks like Australia could be headed for policy inertia on climate change. Prof Eckersley said the problem with climate science was that it required many layers of expertise including scientific analysis to assess emissions but also economic policy to put a price on carbon and measures that touched on infrastructure and other areas. “The complexity is something that confuses average consumers so it’s ripe for misinformation,” she said. “So without leadership to relay the problem and identify a feasible policy, you will not get any movement going forward.” However, as Australian Business Review editor-at-large Alan Kohler argued in The Australian on Monday, ditching the NEG could mean Australians finally get a truthful choice. “Bring it on, I say. Then we might finally get a clear choice at the next election: action on climate change versus no action,” Kohler wrote. “It would have been far better for the country if a clear choice had been on offer in 2010, 2013 and 2016. We might have got some kind of energy policy. “Instead, at each of those elections, the Coalition pretended to have a policy intended to reduce emissions and then, when elected, did nothing (except not abolish the Howard Government’s Renewable Energy Target). “As a result, Australians have never had the chance to tell the nation’s politicians clearly what they actually want.”