Howard's (Anti)Republican Climate Change Policy

The Achilles heel of the Howard government has always been climate change. It has had skeptic-based policies on the subject since its election, and has successively attempted to frustrate global initiatives on binding emission targets and caused the departure of solar and wind power companies to China and California. It comes as no surprise that books are now on sale documenting the role of a 'greenhouse mafia' in climate change policy.

In the midst of a perfect storm caused by a lingering El Nino drought, the release of Al Gore's persuasive documentary An Inconvenient Truth and the revival of the ALP under Kevin Rudd, climate change has become a hot button issue for the community. Howard, who along with the majority of his cabinet rejected a proposal in 2003 to establish an emissions trading scheme has succumbed and agreed to implement a cap and trade scheme to commence operation by 2012.

The whole tenor of the debate looks remarkably like the hot button issue that Howard inherited on his accession to the Lodge (or Kirribilli)...the republic. Howard, a life-long monarchist, simply didn't believe in the proposal. In fact, he did everything in his power to frustrate the vote. He determined that instead of a two-stage process (a plebiscite on the issue of the republic and then a second vote on the actual model), there would be one vote on the model offered by the Constitutional Committee set up in 1998. He also muddied the waters still further by adding a preamble which was even less popular than a bunch of politicians.

Howard's climate change policy is to offer nuclear as a major source of energy (which will not come on line for at least 15-20 years). He presents the case that renewable energy cannot deliver baseload power (the fact that the ALP advocates clean coal has a much to do with preventing it being cast as anti-business and avoiding wedge politics with miners and the coal industry as ideological committment) and that targets should only be set after economic analysis of their effects. The last point, while reasonable on the surface, is in fact code for protecting the industrial status quo. The tenor of the Stern report was that decision-makers should look at the science first to set requisite targets and then consider the economic pathways and repercussions from management of the targets.

Instead of offering targets based on science, we have targets based on supporting the coal, steel and aluminium industries. Instead of renewable energy targets, we have energy reduction targets of 15% and low emission source targets. Low emission technologies are a second or third line defence - they should not be the frontline. Howard's proposal seeks to abolish the state MRET (mandatory renewable energy targets) while replacing them with non-mandatory renewables targets - i.e. option to use renewable energy. Australia must seek to build its renewable industries to be capable of servicing our entire needs by the middle of this century. Under this proposal, renewable energy investment will surely stagnate - it will move offshore and be further consolidated in countries such as China, Germany, the UK and Japan.

These policies are designed to wreck renewable energy - what Howard cannot understand even more than the notion of anthromorphic climate change is the concept that energy sources need not be concentrated in central power station infrastructure. Essentially this is the PM listening to the second verse of the hymn book - 'renewables alone cannot power the economy'. This is not merely misguided thinking, it is dangerous thinking. The PM would be advised, when considering these policy decisions to consider our future competitiveness in a post-carbon era. The seeds are being sown for us to become economic Neanderthal men, perfectly adapted to an age of cheap exploitative industry but hopelessly inept in the high tech world of renewable energy harnessing and consolidation.