The climate Budget betrayal
May 15, 2008 by Christine Milne
Crikey published this piece from me today, in the lead up to my Budget Reply speech tonight, which I will post to the blog as soon as the Hansard is available.
Tuesday night’s Budget was a slap in the face for all those Australians who voted for the Labor Party at the last election in the belief that a new government would be willing and able to make Australia a true global climate leader.
From the day he took leadership of the Labor Party, Kevin Rudd worked hard to present himself in contradistinction to John Howard on climate change. Climate was, more than anything else, supposed to be symbolic of the generational change from Howard to Rudd. My warnings at the time, that the Rudd Opposition had not fully digested the science, did not understand what was required, and was not offering well-thought out policy alternatives, did not fit into that narrative and were largely ignored. Hate to say it, but …
The first Rudd-Swan Budget was qualitatively barely different on climate change from the last Howard-Costello Budget. Investment was not substantially increased, nor was it reprioritised. If anything, it was shifted further into the future and skewed more towards coal and away from renewables. We still have tokenistic, ad hoc gestures dressed up for press releases and photo opportunities rather than a comprehensive, prioritised effort at rebuilding Australia for the post-carbon economy.
Had Howard and Costello scraped through last November, we would have had an emissions trading scheme, a significantly higher renewable energy target and continued minimal and piecemeal Budget investment in renewables, efficiency and mass transit. Spot the difference.
The Government is already scrambling to fix up one mistake: the allocation of absolutely no funds to the renewable energy commercialisation program until 2009-10. When so many renewables technologies are ready for that funding, the proposed patch-up job of funding geothermal drilling is a band-aid when a complete rethink is needed. What’s more, the proposed solution is robbing Peter to pay Paul, taking funds from R&D for solar energy storage rather than from the coal corporations’ overflowing coffers.
A second clanger is gaining momentum: the ludicrous decision to means test the rooftop solar panel rebate. While means testing is generally policy that we Greens support and advocate, applying it to a policy geared at bringing down the price of what is currently the Rolls Royce of renewables is either an utter failure to think or a deliberate move to undermine the industry. What family on less than $100,000 will spend $20,000 on solar panels? The move has already sent shockwaves across the country, with speculation that the installation and manufacturing industries could collapse, along with the Solar Cities program and other so-called government priorities.
Kevin Rudd has called climate change the greatest moral, economic and environmental challenge of our time and a top priority for his government. This is reflected in his first Budget by giving it one fortieth of the funding allocated to Defence. Defence’s $100 billion over the next four years stands in stark contrast to the $2.3 billion for climate change over that time.
In the next decade, Defence will get over a quarter of a trillion taxpayer dollars. Let’s just imagine for a moment where that kind of prioritising could take Australia’s climate change effort.
Within the decade, we could retrofit the whole nation for energy efficiency, replace all existing generation capacity with renewables, with solar thermal and bioenergy providing baseload, compensate existing generators, stop all logging of our native forest carbon stores, set up Just Transitions retraining programs for all workers affected by those transitions, move towards an electrified vehicle fleet and begin the re-design of our cities for sustainability with mass transit and cycleways.
My office has already taken calls and emails from Labor voters angry that the government they voted in to tackle climate change has so betrayed them. The coming years will be telling indeed. It is worth remembering that revolutions occur not when people are most ground down, as they were during the Howard years, but when they have an expectation that something might have been done.
I agree with Christine. This budget is a massive lost opportunity. What can the Greens do about it though? I dont think I can write any more letters or emails.
I suppose means testing the baby bonus at $150k and the roof top solar rebate at $100k says it all about priorities. Plus the bonus/rebate is given for every child produced, but only one rebate per household for a roof top solar install.
So breed, consume, be silent and coal fired (crematoria are usually gas fired, but coal fired sounded better).
Fine words Christene! Loved your second last paragraph. This is exactly what we need to do and its well within Australia’s power to do it.
Rudd set up a series of investment funds for other priorities. That is exactly the model we need for getting big scale renewable generation fast.
Decarbonising our grid should be seen as direct spending on enhancing national security, every bit as potent as a new strike fighter. It directly averts the future threat to national security from those who would punish emitters.
Some things are best left to industry, but expecting the “greatest market failure in history” to be fixed by industry given a bit of tinkering is nuts. It would commit the insane level of hubris of imagining that we are (contradictory to all prior evidence) now magically clever enough to tune the market system to correct its biggest ever failure.
Outsourcing doesn’t always get best results. In Iraq a lot of war support activities have been outsourced to industry and Joe Stiglitz points out this has been the key factor in making Iraq the most expensive war in history.
Challenges like climate need to be faced by government not sidestepped by outsourcing to industry to manage. Industry can play a role, but it can’t be remotely in charge of the process. Government must firmly set the objectives and strictly measure the progress towards the objectives and only reward real progress towards the government set objectives.
Sometimes I think the Greens have no idea how serious the climate problem is, but when I read stuff like the post from Christene above I get at least little more reassured.
Everything is a spectrum I guess. It is a certainty there will be at least a few Green party members who are bigger climate change skeptics than at least some major party members. Its a long way short of ideal, but the best a climate aware Green voter can probably hope for is that the median Green party member is a little more climate aware than the median major party member.
[...] Greens Senator Christine Milne today wrote on GreensBlog about “the climate budget [...]
The Australian Greens have a great opportunity over the next few years to build the Party so much further. There are going to be so many more disillusioned, cynical and angry voters. State voting polls are already showing increases in the Green vote, all around the country. Voters on the Labor Left are being increasingly isolated by their party and more are now willing than ever to vote for the Greens. Unionists are increasingly showing their support for the Greens. Rudd, Garrett and the appalling Labor Attorney-General are a complete disaster- just wait for the full ‘Blair’ affect to be noted by the Australian electorate. The Greens have ‘rich pickings’ to be harvested. Sadly, our country needs the governance that the Greens would provide immediately, but we will have to be patient before the masses start reacting to the growing environmental and social disasters ahead.
Brenton, I agree we have the opportunity. But so do others. It’s as much an opportunity for the Libs to regain power as it is for the Greens to increase their senate representation.
By the time the disasters you predict happen it will be too late and too costly and we will be too weakened to be able to respond. The system has 30 years of warming we haven’t seen yet already built-in due to lags.
We have no choice but to respond at least 30 years before the disasters happen. Otherwise:
“Mother nature is about to bitch slap us back to the stone age.” (I’d like to attribute properly but I can’t remember either the original author or the precise form of that quote.)
It’s depressing to see yet another Green advocating waiting :(
6 John Griiffen, your comments are always interesting ones. I dont advocate waiting for anything! But please tell me how The Greens can address a continually ultra -conservative Australian electorate who ebb and flow between the Liberal and Labor Parties which are seen to be always the next governmental ‘Messiah’ for the nation’s ills????? Australia has few forms of proportional representation in our Parliaments which does not allow the Greens to increase their political influence such as has occurred in some European countries. Also, how can you change the thinking of the general community, if they cannot even comprehend not using Plastic bags and we have seem the hysteria in regard to that issue recently? I do not own a car, walk to the shops, catch public transport to work and I have been called a freak and a radical for such a lifestyle. There are government and business forces who will do anything to stop Green policies from occurring. Look at the money spent attacking the Greens that pours out of the woodwork at every Federal election. The Greens are THE opposition at the moment but Australians are clinging to their old habits, long and hard, hoping that all will be well and that change will not be necessary. John, I am sure you are aware of the urgency for all of these global issues , but please inform me how our few, overworked and under-resourced Members of Parliament can break through the conservatism, ignorance and ‘hide your head in the sand’ of the Australian electorate?????
We have desired Green social outcomes and we have desired Green climate outcomes. Sometimes these intersect mainly that a bad climate produces bad social outcomes.
There will always be social issues. No matter how far our civilisation advances we will need a safety and we will need advocates for it.
But if we only want desired Green climate outcomes provided they come with no undesirable Green social outcomes then we have less chance of getting our desired Green climate outcomes. It is an unavoidable outcome of Bayesian set theory.
Brenton you have identified the electorate as ultra-conservative. Conservatives feel deeply threatened by radicals.
The cost of loudly condemning the behaviour of conservatives at every level of the way they live is the loss of their votes. I suspect it is mostly part of an internal ritual as a radical pissing contest, mainly aimed at impressing the other radicals for the purpose of establishing the internal pecking order. It might be heaps of fun, but there is a price in votes to be paid for that tribalism.
The answer to reducing the time to gaining a proper say on climate is finding ways to present Greens so they are less threatening to that ultra-conservative electorate you have identified.
If you can’t find a way to like them you will never win them as they will always be able to tell you really don’t like them and that will make them fear the prospect of you ever having a say.
How about working really hard and find something to genuinely like about the conservative voters and then proclaim it, telling them so. You will then be amazed how much less suspicious of you they will become. Then the votes will flow more easily.
Another way of saying this is that the “angry radical” act has almost certainly run its course.
Time to shift gears to the “caring, sensible, measured, and deep thinking friend who is utterly determined to ensure the best possible shared future for us and our children” stance.
Every time the Greens get in the media thumping on in the “angry radical” mode they set the cause backwards.
This will be hardest for the old timers to come to terms with. Sometimes old strategies just run out of puff.
John Griffin, the “angry radical” has her place in society, and I agree with you that for broad appeal the “caring measured et cetera” approach will gather the most votes.
Radicalism is usually the prerogative of youth - a communist at 18, socialist at 28, moderate at 38 and conservative at 48, as example. To be remembered is that radicalism and innovation, if successful, become convention. This is where the Oz Greens are at the moment - becoming main stream. Witness the transformation of the Labor party form Ben Chiffley to Kevin Rudd - from socialist to economic rationalist ‘fiscal conservative’ in one generation.
In fairness to Labor though they are ‘Waitiing for Garnaut”, problem being their is nothing left in the kitty to implement anything he might suggest. This means any suggestions will have to be self funding - fiscally responsible again but a huge externalised cost to the environment. Hard not to be angry about that, and channelling that anger constructively is the challenge for the Greens.
So how to attract the large section of Ben Chiffley type socialists to the Greens? They pinned their hopes on Kevin, but are becoming disillusioned. It won’t be by radical action, leave that to Greenpeace et al. It will be by clearly and intelligently articulating the alternatives at every possible occasion with controlled passion. Christine is doing a good job at this, and getting as much airplay as is possible, given the honeymoon phase with Kevin is still on.
The solar panels on roofs was the most expensive way to generate alternative energy–and how many emissions are involved in their manufacture & disposal?
There is a big infrastructure fund being set up, why not work to have some major alternative energy projects funded that way?
Greens, never realistic as they never will be in power.
Jovial Monk, the emissions in manufacture and disposal of PV are a small percentage of the savings over the lifetime of zero emissions electricity generation they provide. Depending on the technology, it is payback of 2-4 years, with a lifetime of 30 years.
Re your second point, we are. We are calling for a massive infrastructure fund on that level to fund renewables, efficiency, public transport, etc. Have a look at what Christine called for in her Budget Reply Speech.
Unfortunately, in current politics, the latter (which you call realistic) is actually unrealistic (it ain’t gonna happen under this government), while the former (reinstating the solar rebate) is realistic (it just might). We work for both.
Tim, its great to hear you are pushing for a climate fund!
Here’s some thoughts I put out at LP regarding getting moving:
Garnaut’s further input isn’t actually required in order to make some first steps towards clean generation. Those first steps are so obvious that they will not undermine any plan by Garnaut and they aren’t even expensive in 2008.
All the government needs to do is announce a tender for proposals due by Nov-2008 to build say a 500MW clean generation plant fully operational by Dec-2012 where the tenderer is the ultimate plant owner. The various bidders can estimate the cost and indicate how much of that cost should be government funded and make a convincing case that they can build it, showing how they have selected sites and thought the process through.
The government can then review the tenders and award a winner by say Feb-09 and start the process which will take a few years to complete. The drawdown of government funds will happen out till 2012 or so, in plenty of time for the future surpluses to meet the cost. The likely total government cost of the process out to 2012 is probably much less than $400M, with industry and financiers meeting the remaining cost (since they get to own the plant).
The cost in 2008 is close enough to zero. The cost in 2009 is probably around $50M.
Such a process would teach us important things and enable faster future replication. The point is it is possible to embark on meaningful action now and take genuine steps in the right direction with what we have and know now.
Can anyone who wants urgent action honestly really rather wait until the ETS is running in 2010 and then start such a process (as the one above) two years later than we could have?
11 mcfarm, I can assure you that not everyone over 48 is a conservative. As one ages I would hope that one becomes more radical!!!!!! Congratulations to all of the pensioners that got their gear off in protest at the Flinders Street Station today. Not only did they have their say and make their statement , but they also had impeccable taste as to their venue!!!!!
10 John Griffin, you have a LOT to say on Greensites!!!!!!
1. Are you a member of the Greens?
2. Do you donate to the Greens?
3. Do you even vote for the Greens?
4. I doubt all of the above very much indeed????
5. Probably, a Labor potplant ( as I call them!!!!!! )
6. How about working really hard, John, and doing something for the Greens?????
Brenton, as I begin my second half century, I can confirm that student radicals, like cheeses and good red wine, improve with age.
Climate Change has been touted as the greatest challenge facing human kind and the general populace now believes this.
Given the need for speed in reducing CO2 emissions, it is reprehensible for the any government to lose an opportunity to assist households and/or businesses to reduce their carbon emissions. What the alternative energy industry needs, is large scale uptake of their technologies, with which will come economies of scale, and ultimately lower prices per unit of energy produced.
Muddling the pursuit of social equity with the need to reduce carbon emissions will sadly come back to bite the very people the government is endeavouring to help and that is lower income earners.
The fast adoption of alternative energy technologies will and can be assisted by government policies that lowers costs for private enterprise. That is what all governments should be doing poste haste.
Don’t play with the future!
the wealthy tend to consume most energy - therefore it makes sense for them to produce as much as possible of the energy they consume by installing renewables technology; positive incentives are always needed to nurture a new technologies. The wealthy need every encouragement to convert to renewables, as do we all.
Mora, the private health insurance tax rebate (targeted roughly at the wealthier half) was dramatically effective at increasing the take up of private health insurance.
Perhaps that suggests a similar model could (with a little thought) be developed for encouraging the uptake of renewables especially by the wealthiest and most able to contribute. It has a feel good element to it and involves taking personal responsibility for emissions.
My sense is people actually want to do this, they just need the right cues. If history is a guide, an income tax rebate seems a mighty cue.
Along side this fiasco of rPV ebate means testing we have the rhetoric and rubbish speak about Feed In Tariffs. I don’t entirely agree with rebates, at least not as a permanent measure. By all means kick start the PV industry with them but include a sunset and a pull back that is smooth and the industry is fully aware of it - not a kick in the guts!
But Feed-In tariffs…. a lot of smoke and mirrors and senior politicians from SA and QLD and soon VIC trumpeting the greenwash. It comes to this.
1. Unless the household is highly conservative with its electricity demand, a roof top PV system is not going to keep up. That leads to
2. SA QLD and VIC will be net systems - that is, the household gets paid for what they do not need. It hardly matters what the buy rate is (40c 60c etc per unit) if you are not delivering to the grid. What we need is a GROSS system whereby the householder gets paid for ALL the electricity their system produces. It works in Germany and other places. Thanks to Mick Gentleman in the ACT parliament and his private members bill, the ACT might just squeek in with a gross system.
But the rest of us? Harmonization, COAG and what way to run the national Feed in Tariff? Go figure. We are stuffed. And then W.Swan decimates the rebate. We either want to act to run this country on renewables or we do not. So far - its not looking good following the advent of Rudd. Christine, as ever, is right on the money!