Let down by Federal Labor

Why do we call this out as a breach of faith?

In the last two weeks we have been devastated by bad climate announcements.

North West Shelf

It started with the approval of the North West Shelf extension for another 40 years.

National Climate Risk Assessment

Very shortly after that announcement came the publication of the national climate risk assessment.  This report was completed before the last federal election but only recently released.  It paints a dire forecast for Australia and makes any justification of the NW shelf announcement lack credibility.

2035 Climate Target

Finally, we received the 2035 Emission target range.  The 2035 target is 62-70% reduction.  This is below expectations and should be put in the context of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which had found limiting global heating to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels would require a 68% global cut between 2005 and 2035.  While we might argue that 70% is above the required level it is also clear that developed countries such as Australia would be expected to do more than 68% for there to be any chance of that global average being met.

The announcement of the 2035 emission targets has been met with criticism from almost every climate organisation in Australia.

 

Is our criticism justified?

The 2035 target

Federal Labor claims that the 2035 target will be difficult to achieve and that they are doing all that is practicable.  The Plan identifies five decarbonisation priorities for Australia to achieve net zero:

• Clean electricity across the economy.
• Lowering emissions by electrification and efficiency.
• Expanding clean fuel use.
• Accelerating new technologies.
• Net carbon removals scaled up.

To build on the existing net zero policies and progress to date, we are:

• building a low carbon liquid fuels industry in Australia to provide alternative energy sources when electrification is not an option
• investing in industrial decarbonisation and clean technology manufacturing through a new sub-fund of the National Reconstruction Fund (drawing from and refocusing existing NRF capital)
• committing additional capital for investment in the Clean Energy Finance Corporation
• speeding up the rollout of kerbside and fast EV charging
• helping homeowners and businesses improve energy performance and helping sports clubs do their bit to decarbonise.

Let’s investigate these claims.

The Federal Government plans

The Federal Labor plans for achieving the 2035 target rely significantly on the continuing transition of our grid to renewable, a signification electrification of transport topped up by the development of low carbon liquid fuels.  Will this work and is it enough?

On the plus side

We regard the transition to renewables in the electricity industry as a strong success for the current government.  The transition has been, and will continue to be, difficult but the government continues to take action to ensure that progress continues.

Where we think that the government falls short

Increasing EV uptake

We have a government that provides no support for EV purchasing and is considering introducing a road tax purely for EVs.  This approach is not supportive and can hardly be seen to be driving the mass adoption of BEVs.

• We would accept the introduction of a weight linked toad tax that applied to all vehicles. This would be a fair tax as it would place a higher charge on vehicles that cause greater damage to our roads.
• We would like to see the Government providing a small financial incentive to assist drivers to transition.
• We would also like to see the removal, or phase out, of diesel fuel tax subsidies that encourage the purchase of large diesel vehicles.

The Government can clearly do more.

Powering the mining sector and the transport sectors

• The Government continues to support the use of diesel with:
  • Diesel fuel tax subsidies. Australia’s biggest miners have banked almost $60 billion in diesel fuel tax subsidies in less than 20 years, according to a new report.
  • The transport sector also receives diesel fuel tax subsidies,
  • Others qualify for the Fuel rebate scheme.

While some companies and individuals do switch to renewables for transport, subsidising diesel and petrol is clearly slowing the transition.

Our opinion is that the Government is not doing enough in the transport sector.

Industry

The government has had little success getting industry to convert to electricity.  This is partly because many industries are unaware of the benefits of electrification and partly because industry is re-assured that gas will continue to be available.

• By not setting a time for the closure of gas networks industry continues with the belief that there is no need for change.
• Industry is under little pressure to innovate with the Government offering to continue to support outdated practices by supplying biogas and other fuels. Nobody has addressed the cost of maintaining the gas transmission and distribution networks to provide gas to a handful of industries. This could make current plans ineffective.

We would like to see gas usage figures by industry / customer made available and to see funding for organisations such as A2EP, who understand industry and can provide quality advice to industry.  A combination of new technologies and energy efficiency initiatives could resolve many of the problems facing industry.

In our view the Government has failed to come up with sufficient incentives to help industry transition, has not made gas consumption numbers available and is not taking advantage of skilled resources that can help resolve many of the issues.

Other sectors

Finally, we look at other sectors.  The government has no policy to remove gas from residential homes.  This is a complex task and the transition will take many years to complete.  This is not a decision that should be kicked down the road.

We also note that the Government has committed to building a low carbon liquid fuels building a low carbon liquid fuels industry in Australia to provide alternative energy sources when electrification is not an option.  This appears to have been dome without a true analysis if how big a problem this is.  Many industries that were thought to rely on gas can now be electrified.  It has been claimed that our dairy industry cannot electrify but dairy industries in Europe have.

We should make sure that industries that rely on low carbon fuels understand the likely costs of these solutions and electrify where possible.  This is likely to keep them competitive.

These are other areas where the government must be given a “fail”.

In summary, we feel that the Government has shown itself to be not up to the task despite good work in the electricity sector.

Does the target lack ambition?

In a Guardian article Zoe Daniels argues that the Government is not ambitious enough.  She cites the following to support this claim:

• Treasury estimates a ‘disorderly’ energy transition would result in an Australian economy that’s $1.2tn smaller.
• As the CSIRO said in 2019: “Under a ‘slow decline’ scenario by 2060 where Australia fails to adequately address climate change and sustainability challenges, GDP is projected to grow at 0.7% less per year and real wages would be 50% lower than under an ‘outlook scenario’ where Australia meets climate change and sustainability challenges.”
• Before the release of the target, last week Deloitte modelling for a coalition of 500 Australian businesses suggested that a 75% emissions reduction target by 2035 versus 65% could yield $227bn in additional GDP over 10 years, growing to $490bn over 25 years. This is in part due to the market forces that a decisive target would drive.
• “In a competitive global environment, a 65% target is unlikely to drive the level of capital, innovation and jobs required for Australia to build new export industries.”

Clearly, we are not alone in believing that the Government is not doing enough.  This is a view held by the majority of the Climate movement.

 

Does the Government understand the underlying issues?

Discussion

We have a government that likes to talk the talk and one that would like to host COP31, next year’s UN climate conference.  However, we see actions taken by this government that do not reflect commitment to reducing global warming.

• We continue to approve offshore gas and mining projects on the basis that the emissions are counted by the county burning the fuel. This is purely a mechanism for avoiding double counting.  The Government is trying to drive a coach and horses through this loophole.  As an exporter we have an equal responsibility for these emissions.
• We are so eager to stoke the fires that we virtually give away our precious resources. If we want to make a difference, we could increase taxes and royalties on exports and give money to overseas countries trying to decarbonise.
• We have signed the Methane Pledge but we take no action. We know that our methane emissions are under-reported. but we take no action as the under-reporting makes us look good.
• A large storage tank for liquefied natural gas in Darwin has been leaking methane for at least 8 years. It sits empty now, but documents seen by the ABC suggest the scale of leaking pollutants could be equivalent to 8,300 new cars on the road every year it is in use.  And it’s about to be filled up again. Northern Territory regulators found out about the DLNG leak in 2020, just hours after signing off on a proposal to extend its operations until 2050.  It seems that methane emissions that are not reported are not an issue.
• Every new gas field or coal mine expansion will result in increased levels of methane.

Conclusion

The Government is strong on commitments and short on action.  Being able to manipulate the figures to make Australia look good benefits no one, least of all the people of Australia.

Is this new behaviour?

Unfortunately not.  The Labor Federal Government has continued to approve gas and coal projects just like its predecessor the Coalition Government.  This is despite selling itself to the electorate as a party committed to climate action.  It seems that the wishes of the Fossil Fuel industry outweigh the wishes of the people.  One can only wonder at the deals between our major parties and the lobbyists that walk the corridors of Canberra.

The current government is also like its predecessor in that it virtually gives away our resources leaving us to clear up the mess that fossil fuel companies cause.

Some of the facts

Let’s look at some of the facts.

• The approval of the Adani coalmine was one of the most controversial approvals and numerous individuals protested trying to stop the approval. What is the current status?
  • According to the Guardian “More than three years after Adani started extracting coal from its Queensland mine, the Indian conglomerate has paid zero corporate tax from its Australian project – and tax experts say it may “never pay a cent”.
  • “Adani pledged just over a decade ago to plough $22bn in taxes and royalties into the Australian economy. Industry groups supporting the coal company had also claimed Adani’s controversial plans would fund schools, hospitals and other infrastructure for “almost a century”.

“Despite recording strong revenue, Adani’s Australian assets regularly report annual losses, in large part due to large annual payments to related parties for interest and lease expenses.

Result – a win for fossil fuel companies, a climate disaster.

• In September 2024 the Federal Government approved the mine life extension of three New South Wales coal mines, allowing them to continue operations for decades to come.

Result – a win for fossil fuel companies, a climate disaster.

• Just recently, the Government approved a forty-year extension to the North West Shelf development. This will probably use the leaking tank in Darwin with continued methane emissions.  How could the environment minister, Murray Watt, confirming that he had approved a potential 40-year life extension for the North West Shelf liquified natural gas export facility, one of the country’s biggest polluting sites?  We deserve better.

Result – a win for fossil fuel companies, a climate disaster.

Conclusion

The Government either does not understand or does not care about the emissions caused by our mining and gas developments.  Even worse, we virtually give away these precious resources making the Fossil fuel industry very rich.  There could be some argument that exporting was good is we taxed the exports and used the funds to support decarbonisation in other countries, but we don’t.  This is bad for Australia.

Do they understand the risks?

It is hard to imagine there will be a more important piece of work put out by the Albanese government in this term of parliament than the national climate risk assessment.

It provides more than enough information to politicians to, no longer, be able to ignore the risks that they are taking with our planet.

What does the Assessment say?

It is worth considering what the assessment led by the Australian Climate Service says.  It explains that climate change will impact most, if not all, of us with the impacts varying by region.  The extract below comes from the executive summary of the report:

The map below illustrates examples of the climate risks and impacts across Australia.

These extracts are challenging, but this report is too important to ignore.

Economic future

The report talks about the country’s economic future if global emissions are not curbed and temperatures continue to rise.

Across three scenarios, it describes the likelihood of climate-driven events triggering “cascading shocks” to the financial system. Supply chains are likely to be disrupted, leading to goods shortages – a trend that has already begun in areas hit by floods and cyclones. Energy supplies and telecommunications could fail. Assets could be written down and loans defaulted across a region. Households and businesses then may not have access to finance, and the value of investments and superannuation could fall.

It suggests that at more than 2C of global heating – a level we are headed towards on our current trajectory – the systems Australians rely on could start to crumble and collapse.

Health related risks

The report also details what rising temperatures will mean for health and social support systems, including a rise in deaths and hospital admissions from heatwaves, which already kill more people than all other forms of extreme weather.

The heat related mortality in major Australian cities is illustrated in the figure below:

Remember, we are already heading for 2 degrees.

Sea level rises

On sea level rise, the assessment found that more than 1.5 million people could be living in areas at risk of coastal flooding in 2050. On the natural environment, it reinforces that Australia is likely to lose ecosystems and species by the middle of the century. This would be a tragedy in its own right, and could affect people’s access to clean air, water and food. Infrastructure, primary industries and national security could all face substantial disruption.

Finally, the risks have been categorised into 8 categories.  The summary is below: