Governing by committee
The biggest question for Climate Spectator readers arising out of the ALP’s day of deliverance by the two country independents is this: What does it mean for climate change and clean energy policies?
That will likely depend on how long this minority government can survive. At the very least, these issues are now back on the agenda, which is a big step ahead of where we would have been with a majority government of either ilk.
Having shied away from climate change and clean energy policies during the election, the major parties are now faced with a greener parliament than they could ever have imagined. And there is every reason to believe that discussions will now focus on the policy, rather than the naked politics that blighted and finally hopelessly compromised the CPRS.
The key to bringing that debate to life will be the "climate committee”, a condition laid down by Greens climate change and energy spokesman Christine Milne, who drew on examples from Norway and Sweden in her attempt to find a mechanism that can leverage the multi-party dynamic that will be a feature of this parliament, at least until the next election.
Quite how this climate committee will work is not yet clear. Parliament is entering virgin territory. The broad agreement between the Greens and Labor provides only that they will decide on the mechanism by the end of September, which gives them three weeks to sort it out.
Milne’s vision is that it will include representatives from the ALP, the Coalition, the Greens, and the two country independents – Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott – who made climate change one of the key considerations for their decision to ditch the rural conservatism of their constituents in favour of the ALP. She also wants a panel of experts – like Ross Garnaut, for example – to sit on the committee.
Milne is aware of the time constraints, and that this is possibly a one-term opportunity that needs to be seized. “This is the best political opportunity we’ve ever had. We’ve got a minority government for three years, then we are going back to majority rule."
How the Coalition plays its hand will be interesting. Milne wants the pre-condition of membership of this government committee to be acceptance of the science of human-caused climate change and the need for a carbon price. The Coalition’s spokesman on climate change Greg Hunt is not happy.
"I don’t believe that parliament should ever have a committee where a belief test is a prerequisite,” he said yesterday. “Parliament should be place for free thought, …it is completely inappropriate.” His colleague, Malcolm Turnbull, might have a different take on the matter.
Milne, though, had a word of warning for the clean energy industry yesterday, saying that it needed to be forceful and speak with one voice, which it has conspicuously failed to do till now. She pointed to the debate on the renewable energy target, for instance, where there was no clear stance by the industry and it ended up being outmanouvered by the aluminium industry, which won major concessions.
This was a sentiment echoed, extraordinarily, by a government bureaucrat, Greg Nielsen, the head of Queensland’s Office of Clean Energy, who told the EcoGen conference. “I see a lot of good intent. What I don’t see is the amount of collaboration that we need. It’s not just about renewables, or energy efficiency or peak demand management or R&D. It is about all of these. Can we please have greater unity on this agenda.”
They are absolutely right. The proponents of clean energy and climate change policy have been comprehensively outplayed by their opponents in the public policy debate. The lack of a coherent strategy has meant that the economic and environment opportunities of a low carbon economy have struggled to gain traction in the media.
The Rudd government can take much of the blame for that, but Milne says it also comes down to the quality of industry leadership. “Everyone is scratching around for small outcomes. That is not the strategy. Get yourself unified. If you can’t get (a representative body) that can agree, get one that will agree.”
That sentiment is one that is widely shared, and will make for some interesting positioning in coming months. The Clean Energy Council is presumed to be the industry representative, but it is distrusted by many, particularly those in emerging technologies such as solar and geothermal who see it as a vehicle primarily for the wind industry and the established players in the energy market.
The CEC membership criteria is a particularly sore point, and smaller players accuse it of effectively selling its policy positions to the highest bidders. Those with the means, pay a $49,000 annual fee gain special privileges, such as input into policy formation and 20 votes at the AGM. Smaller players pay a $12,000 fee or just over $2000 but get no direct policy input and just six or two votes respectively.
Little wonder that a number of alternative groups continue to proliferate in their place. There are several solar groups – and another one soon to be formed to represent large-scale solar developers – a geothermal organisation and others representing biomass, and most recently hydrogen. The WA Sustainable Energy Association, an effective voice for the WA industry, is considering going national.
But much will also depend on how mainstream businesses – the property groups, retailers, manufacturers, and the finance industry who are not afraid of a carbon price and see it as essential to remain internationally competitive – are able to gather their forces as an effective voice in favour of such policies. Even if the opportunity for a more considered debate is afforded by the new parliament, the public positioning of industry groups will be crucial.
Comments on this article
Richards "World"
Richard believes local weather patterns experienced in his back yard ("Coffs Harbour to Hervey Bay") is representative of the global climate......please don't nominate yourself for a position on the committee!!
You can't clean energy if it's already dirty.
.
Giles, please don't use the term "clean energy" (lower case), as it misleads people into thinking that methane is good for the greenhouse.
.
The phrase already has a familiar association in the common advertisements: "gas -- the clean energy source". This is about as true as "healthy cigarettes". In fact, methane leaking (1-2%) from gas pipelines is worse for the greenhouse than the CO2 in its exhaust gas.
.
When we read that phrase, we should wonder if its author (present company excepted) is supported by one of those innocently-named Institutes funded largely by the gas industries, and whose net effect is to increase our greenhouse gas emissions.
.
About the only descriptor we can trust to mean non-carbon is the term itself, "non-carbon". Only with the explicit description do we know we're not being cajoled to give a thumbs up to offsets, biosequestration, clean coal ... or gas.
It's called *global* climate change, Richard!
<<Humans don't cause climate change.>>
Of course we don't cause climate change, just like we don't pollute the rivers, or pollute the atmosphere, or pollute the oceans, or cause a species extinction rate 1000 times the natural average. Nor did we cause a 700,000 square kilometre plastic rubbish heap in the ocean (the Great Pacific Garbage Patch), or clear fell millions of hectares of rain forest every week or so. How can a measly 6.5 billion humans have any effect on the environment? It's all a conspiracy by scientists. They're all liars and crooks. Right, Richard?
<<We are not seeing the far greater number of severe thunderstorms we saw in the 1970's because the heat is not there to cause the vertical development. Neither are we seeing the same number of cyclones which need warmer sea water temperatures to form.>>
I see, so you believe the earth is cooling Richard. You'll make good mates with Tony Abbott and all the other AGW deniers. It is a pity the facts contradict you.
Heads-up Richard, we currently have a record sunspot minimum (the lowest count in over 100 years) and thus should be seeing unusually cool temperatures globally, yet low and behold 2009 was the second warmest year in the modern record, with 2010 likely to push a similar result. The truth is out there Richard. This problem is real and it is becoming worse, not better.
In relation to the topic at hand (Governing by committee), I feel Julia and Penny will do everything in their power to water down clean energy policies to protect their union mates and big business. Julia successfully scuttled Labor's weaker-than-weak CPRS before the election, and I am convinced she will do everything in her power to delay its re-introduction and implementation.
"Governing by committee"
Thanks Giles. This Committee will be the crucial policy mechanism for progress in climate change policy. Bob Brown and Christine Milne understand this well. The committee must of course be made up of people who recognise the truth of the climate science, if you like based on the risk minimisation principle as advocated by Tony Windsor (though I believe the science is already well and truly in that there is over 90% probability of disruptive climate change by 2060, if the world continues to burn carbon at the present rate), and who accept the urgent need to begin some form of national carbon pricing in Australia.
After that, the policy questions will be many: carbon tax or carbon trading? What 2020 and 2050 targets? What role if any for direct government planning and funding of renewables energy plant and supporting expanded energy grid lines? I addressed such questions in my strongly researched but somewhat overlooked book ''Crunch Time" (Scribe, September 2009) which remains a sound unbiassed citizen primer on the politics of the climate change policy challenge in Australia. I am pleased to volunteer my services on the committee of experts, my credentials being this book. Lobbyists and special interest pleaders will exert pressures to get onto that committee: and the climate movement will be as ever irresolute, divided and I fear ineffectual. The committee needs clearheaded and articulate policy people of competence, vision, integrity and general knowledge of the issues.
Ross Garnaut would be an excellent chairman, now that he has seen what happened in practice to his initially preferred carbon trading system in 2008-2009 under pressure of lobbyists. He would now have an open mind on the alternative of a simple carbon tax that would be less open to the corrupting.power of special interests. .
First things first
"Ms Milne wants the pre-condition of membership of this government committee to be acceptance of the science of human-caused climate change and the need for a carbon price." True ?
I would have thought the first thing Ms Milne & those on her committee should have on their wish list would be irrefutable SCIENTIFIC evidence that proves conclusively that CO2 is a pollutent. Surely not too much to ask? After all the financial impacts upon our economy of an ETS or CPRS scheme are not insignificant.
Whilst on the subject of evidence, could it be that the tactics employed by the authors of past UN IPCC Reports (previously regarded as the Gold Standard) are little better nowadays than those tactics employed by used car salesmen? Following link refers..
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/climate-panel-must-be-purged/story-e6frg6zo-1225914025436
What a disgrace. Time to go back & revisit the science of climate change (formerly global warming) BEFORE we throw the baby out with the bath water. First things first !
Climate
Few journalists have science degrees but Mark Lawson of the AFR does. His new book Guide to Climate Change Lunacy details the weaknesses in the science and economics of the theory about CO2. There is in fact no case for action.
The only factor driving action in the northern hemisphere is enery security. The CO2 stuff is dead.
Govt Climate Change Plan.
Happy to Chair that commitee.
Barrie Harrop.
Climate Change
Humans don't cause climate change. Whilst we certainly degrade the environment by too much development and waste of energy, the pressure systems that drive our weather are not caused or changed by man. The east coast of Australia especially from Coffs Harbour to Hervey Bay has had very mild summers and winters over the past 10-15 years and summers are cooler than they were 40 years ago. We are not seeing the far greater number of severe thunderstorms we saw in the 1970's because the heat is not there to cause the vertical development. Neither are we seeing the same number of cyclones which need warmer sea water temperatures to form. I wonder why a detailed comment I made some days ago on the problems with wind turbines caused by severe weather was deleted? How well do you think renewable energy would have been able to supply base load electricity to Victoria during it's recent bad weather with gale force winds and heavy rain?
Richard Kleeman