What does our government think about Climate Change and Coal?

On the 20th of March (2017), Adam Bandt asked Malcolm Turnbull a question:

Adam Bandt (Greens, Melbourne) asking Malcolm Turnbull (Liberal Prime Minister) about the Adani coal mine and Climate Change. Watch this video.

The question and the answer are both instructive in understanding the general calibre of discussion that we have around energy in Australia and expose what we need to do if the energy discussion is to move forwards in Australia.

The Question

Adam asked the following question:

My question is to the Prime Minister. Senior members of the US military and national security establishment last night warned on Four Corners that climate change is a massive security threat, with sea level rise and droughts fuelling conflict and terrorism. Do you agree that there are national security implications from climate change? If so, given that most fossil fuel reserves need to stay in the ground to meet the two-degree limit we agreed to in Paris, will you rule out letting the Northern Australian Infrastructure Facility or any other public money subsidise the Adani coal mine and associated infrastructure, or are you happy to use taxpayer funds to threaten our way of life?

That question has a lot of moving parts so lets break down what Adam says:

• Statement: Climate Change is a security threat because it will cause sea level rise and droughts. When people are displaced and hungry they tend to fight each other. Some US military people said that on Four Corners last night.
• Question: Do you agree that there are national security implications from climate change?
• Statement: Fossil fuel reserves need to stay in the ground to meet the two-degree limit we agreed to in Paris.
• Question: Why are we using taxpayer money to help build new fossil fuel based infrastructure in Australia given our existing commitments?

It was a leading question, it was verbose, it was charged with emotive language: it was a question designed to indicate blame. Thus, it was not likely to get an amicable response; I doubt that was the intention.

The question could be put more simply:

Prime Minister, why are we spending taxpayer money to aid in the construction of a new coal mine instead of putting that money towards initiatives that would (a) meet our Paris agreement climate objectives,(b) help safeguard the future of Australians and (c) invest money into the jobs of the future?

I am sure that we have a number of Australian companies in the clean energy space that could really use taxpayer funded help getting off the ground faster.

So let’s see what the Prime Minister said in response.

The Response

The response by the prime minister was even longer and jumped around a bit, so lets break it down into sections. Let’s start with the preamble:

I thank the honourable member for his question. As the honourable member would be aware, the government is very alert to the risk of climate change and the national security implications — particularly of rising sea levels, particularly in our region — that it involves, and of course we have substantial programs right through the Pacific in particular to help our neighbours in the Pacific deal with the consequences of rising sea levels and all of the security implications thereof.

This block of the response mostly fluff but let’s break it down anyway:

• The first sentence is just common courtesy.
• The Prime Minister acknowledges that climate change is real and has implications. He believes that his government is alert to the risks involved. This does not tell us much. I’m alert to the risks of driving a car but that does not tell you wether or not I drive or take the bus.
• The Prime Minister feels that the risk of rising sea levels was the more prominent concern than droughts. He believes that our foreign aid will be enough to help our pacific partners when (not if) sea levels rise and affect their lives.

Let’s go to the next section, maybe it will have more insights:

As far as the Adani coal mine is concerned, I would simply say this to the honourable member: I understand that he and his party want to prohibit all coal mining in Australia. I understand that; that is their policy. Were Australia to stop exporting coal tomorrow, not only would billions of dollars of export revenue be lost, not only would thousands of jobs be lost but there would be no benefit to the global climate whatsoever, because if our coal exports stopped, they would simply be sourced from other countries

Stop. Right here is a classic case of changing the topic, dodging the question and creating a straw man argument. It is at this point that the Prime Minister refused to answer the question. To refresh your memory:

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument, while refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be “attacking a straw man”.

Adam said nothing in his question about shutting down every coal mine in Australia immediately. He has actually asked: why are we aiding and allowing the construction of this new coal mine?

Adam has no desire to shut down all of the coal mines immediately. He understands that this would be a terrible thing to do. His party, the Greens, have been talking about a “just transition” away from fossil fuels for years (literally years).

The prime minister has changed the question away from being about new coal mines to being about all coal mines. It is this new point, this straw man, to which he then refutes with the following points:

• Shutting down all coal jobs tomorrow would create massive job loss.
  This is correct. People would lose their jobs with nothing to move into. However, some sort of…just transition…might help to alleviate that issue.
• Other countries would move in to fill the void of coal creation.
  This would only happen if we stopped all coal production immediately. Instead of engaging in a transition period. Also, the world is shifting away from fossil fuels and solar is getting cheaper than fossil fuels all across the country. It is only a matter of time where sheer economics eliminates fossil fuel use globally. We should be leading that transition. Not lagging it.

Hopefully it is clear to you too, at this point, that Adam’s question is not going to be answered. Still, in the name of rigour, lets go through the rest of the response.

— obviously Indonesia and Columbia being two that spring to mind immediately, but there are many others. The reality is that the Australian coal industry produces coal of a cleaner quality, a higher quality, than many of its competitors, with low sulphur and low ash.

Some simple points:

• There are other people out there that are mining coal currently and would be more than happy to provide more. This is unfortunate but true; there are no lack of coal suppliers. Quite the opposite, coal supply is set to outstrip demand.
• The Australian coal industry historically produces coal of a cleaner and higher quality than other suppliers. This may be true but I take issue with attempting to greenwash coal by claiming that our coal is “cleaner”. Frankly, the words “clean” and “coal” do not belong together. From a carbon emissions perspective all coal is horribly dirty no matter how clean you claim it to be. Coal is terrible for the environment. In this instance, Australia is really polishing a turd.

The fact that the prime minister is advocating so strongly for Coal when it will be on the way out within the next decade and it’s terrible for the environment really worries me. Adam might be right. Do we care about the Paris climate commitments that we made?

If our exports were stopped, as the honourable member would do,

I think that we have established that he would not. He would beg for a transition period. Moving on.

it would achieve nothing except to reduce the living standards of Australians and absolutely shatter the lives and livings of the communities that depend on the coal industry.

If we had a transition period then these great Australian workers could be retrained into better jobs for them and the rest of the country. Just saying. Okay. Actually moving on.

It would be an exercise in ideological futility and an exercise that — I have to say to the honourable member, with great respect — is so characteristic of his party, which seems to want to de-industrialise Australia for no purpose other than an ideological one.

Seems to want to de-industrialise Australia for no purpose other than an ideological one…this is wrong on so many levels. Where to even begin.

Let’s start with the simple fact that the greens want there to be to be 90% renewable energy by 2030. This is a huge, audacious vision. Even the greens think that it is unlikely to happen; even with concerted effort. But that is what a vision is: an ideal to strive towards. A moon shot. If they fell short of their goals and only hit say 50% then I would not be complaining (the Labour party certainly would not be).

Here’s the thing: in order to make this happen you would have to create the biggest industrial effort in Australia since the Snowy Hydro scheme. Hardly a desire to de-industrialise Australia.

I’m afraid that this claim by the Prime Minister is, quite simply, false.

I would also like to add that calling this ideological futility is essentially an ad hominem attack. And it is a little bit like the pot calling the kettle black; after all, the liberal party has some ideological things that they care about and are willing to spend a bunch of time on.

What the prime minister should have said

From my perspective, I want to see my politicians being more bipartisan and playing better together. This is what the Prime Minister could have said:

• More new coal power plants don’t make sense given our Paris climate commitments. We’ve reconsidered and we won’t aid the Adani mine and we won’t let it be constructed. We don’t need more coal mines.
• As coal dwindles down over the next decade we will put transition plans in place to give these workers new skills. Australia is a country of smart innovators and we can use their skills to build a brighter future.
• In the meantime, we will pour even more money into renewable and sustainable energy. We will make the Snowy Hydro project happen. We will have battery storage in every state. We will fully support the change to the 5-minute rule. We are a government that cares about innovation in Australia and energy is one of many great places in which we can do it.

Let’s do it Australia!

It’s clear that we, as Australians, need to change the discussion that our politicians are having. Let’s make that happen. If this post encourages you to do one thing then it would be this: reach out to your local politician and let them know that you fully support moving away from fossil fuels and into renewable energy as quickly as possible; starting immediately.