The Political Weekly: Coalition in-fighting, Julie Bishop’s tactical move and cries of racism.
Will Australians’ faux environmentalism derail our greenhouse effort?
It seems the Government’s proposed flood levy has tested the limits of Australians’ willingness to help others. While many thousands voluntarily gave money, supplies and physical support to those affected by the floods, opinion polls show around half the population has balked at a modest Government levy to share restoration costs.
Why aren’t we prepared to pay a bit more for the greater good? Is it because we resent being forced to pay when so much has already been given voluntarily? Or is it because the levy is seen simply as another tax grab? Again, the opinion polls suggest it’s a combination of the two.
Perhaps even more troubling is the extension of our philanthropic inconsistency beyond charitable acts into the environmental domain. Many Australians are only pseudo green, speaking green words rather than doing green deeds and this faux environmentalism has implications for the carbon price now at the centre of the Gillard Government’s greenhouse efforts.
Essentially, the carbon price will increase the cost of greenhouse gas-based goods and services to a level similar with those produced using renewable-based technologies. The aim of the carbon price is to encourage consumers, when faced with similarly high priced goods and services, to choose the renewable-based option and thereby bring down its cost over time through economies of scale.
Therefore, the carbon price relies on our willingness as individuals to pay more for the collective good. Does our reluctance to pay the flood levy foreshadow a similar resistance to pay the carbon price? The disparity between our green words and deeds suggests this is indeed the case. Just look at our purchasing behaviour.
Australia enjoys some of the cheapest electricity in the world and as a result we’ve furnished our homes with air-conditioning, multiple fridges, big screen televisions and numerous computing devices. This cheap, coal-based electricity comes at an environmental price with around 17% of Australia’s energy-related greenhouse gas emissions coming from household electricity use.
Even though we know this and despite the establishment of the first green energy schemes way back in 1997, Australians’ voluntary participation in such schemes continues to languish in the single-digit percentages. The Australian Bureau of Statistics reports that household awareness of renewable-based GreenPower schemes increased to 52% in 2008. While 33% of Australians expressed a willingness to pay extra for GreenPower, in fact only 5% of households actually do so.
The same pattern emerges with green shopping. Independent research recently conducted with the support of the food and grocery industry and EPA Victoria found that while 80% of shoppers said they consider sustainability issues when doing the groceries, their actual shopping trolley contents showed only 13% bought environmentally-sustainable food and groceries. When asked about packaging, 27% of those surveyed said they’d be prepared to compromise on food and grocery packaging to protect the environment; but only 6% said they would give up the convenience that came with packaging. On the thorny question of price, 85% of the shoppers surveyed said they were worried about the impact of food and groceries on the environment. At the same time, 78% said they would not pay extra for sustainable products if this made the products more expensive.
The emptiness of our green rhetoric is obvious even in car sales. 2010 was a record year for the sale of greenhouse-friendly hybrid cars, with Toyota selling 6833 hybrid Camrys and 1611 Priuses. Unfortunately this doesn’t mean that Aussies are abandoning their V8s for climate friendly cars; only 20% of the hybrids were purchased by private buyers with the rest being bought by celebrities, governments or businesses. In a similar vein, all of the 112 electric cars bought last year were for commercial fleets.
So here’s the rub. Australians are generally reluctant to be more environmentally responsible, particularly if it costs more. Combine this with our resistance to the flood levy and it seems likely that we will resent being required to pay more for everything that involves carbon in its production, transport or use.
The Prime Minister cannot be complacent about the sincerity of the community’s commitment to greenhouse action. It’s quite clear that while we often say the right thing, we do something else.
Unless this is acknowledged, nothing will be done to understand or transform our faux environmentalism into the real thing. If nothing is done, our greenhouse efforts are doomed to be derailed by public self-interest and outrage.
Right now, public support for a carbon price is little more than uninformed rhetoric. The Gillard Government needs to prepare for when the Australian people start to focus on the personal cost that will arise from the carbon price. Saying it is for the common good will just not be enough.
This article originally appeared at The King’s Tribune.
It must be sad to be an old environmental warrior: to reminisce about the days of barricades, placards, chants, feathers, drums and, well, copious amounts of hair. Clearly Clive Hamilton has been in a reminiscent mood. Perhaps he’s been fretfully stroking his shiny cranium while remembering the good ole Franklin Dam protests and what they achieved. Perhaps he nibbled on one of those special cookies that were so popular in those days.
How else could he come to the conclusion that mainstream environmentalism has failed because of “the professionalisation of environmental activism over the past two decades.”
Perhaps you, like me, read this and muttered the classic teenager response, “huh?”
Perhaps you, like me, wondered if you had totally misunderstood the clean-shaven and articulate environmental activists that have emerged over the past two decades? Why is it that we found them persuasive and convincing when Dr Hamilton says they were sell-outs to incrementalism and professionalism?
What did we miss?
Perhaps it’s not what we missed, but that which is being missed by the well-meaning Dr Hamilton.
Just like the far-left elements of the Labor Party and some of the Australian Greens, Clive is simply feeling cast adrift because environmentalism is now mainstream. In fact, the broader concept of sustainability – the combination of economic, social AND environmental responsibility – is being embraced across business, government and the broader community.
Admittedly, we have a long way to go. Australians are big talkers when it comes to environmental action and don’t always follow through with consistent actions, but our minds and hearts are open to opportunities to do something for the common good. The outpouring of support for Queenslanders affected by the floods is a perfect example.
Surely Clive Hamilton is being disingenuous when he says that:
We need a new environmental radicalism made up of those willing to put their bodies on the line; because no one ever achieved radical social change by being respectable.
Does Australia really need more radicalism, at a time when religious radicalism is being blamed for racism and other forms of bigotry?
Surely the incremental, professional and constructive way to approach environmental responsibility makes the most sense?
Yes it does.
Many words have been written elsewhere about environmentalists realising that they had to dress, think and talk like corporates and government policy-makers if they were going to influence environmental decision-making within either type of institution.
As a result, green activists were sourced from a broader range of disciplines including economics, law, the physical sciences like geography and chemistry, and the behavioural sciences like psychology.
Only once they were equipped to step into corporate boardrooms and departmental meeting rooms, and speak the same language as their antagonists, were environmentalists able to make ground on a raft of issues.
Without the professionalism of green activists, and their acceptance of incrementalism as a means to an end – two of the three weaknesses identified by Clive Hamilton – many of the environmental reforms we take for granted today would not be in place. These include the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, the National Pollutant Inventory, and the programs to protect Australia’s native forests and the Great Barrier Reef. None of these reforms are perfect, but they are a vast improvement on what existed before, which was nothing at all.
I can’t conclude this note without mentioning a few green activitists whose achievements are the best counterpoint to Dr Hamilton’s fretful illusions.
Each of these people put on a suit, learned to talk in corporate-speak and made a material difference to the way the environment is valued and managed by corporate Australia and the Australian Government (and none of them will thank me for mentioning them):
Paul Gilding was CEO of Greenpeace International and after he left was a trail-blazer in advising corporations how to adopt sustainable practices. He now works with individuals, businesses, NGOs, entrepreneurs, academia and governments.
Tricia Caswell was on the Executive of the ACTU and then went on to be Executive Director of the Australian Conservation Foundation. After that she was the Executive Director of PLAN Australia and then went on to found the Global Sustainability Institute at the RMIT University that initiated most of the discussions around triple-bottom line reporting for business in the early 2000s.
Michael Rae was with WWF Australia when he worked with the Australian minerals industry to improve their performance on environmental and social matters. Michael also led the charge at the international level, during the Global Mining Initiative, to reduce the use of cyanide in the mining and production of gold. He now runs the Responsible Jewellery Council.
Erwin Jackson progressed from Greenpeace to the ACF and is now the deputy at the Climate Institute, which is so derided by Clive Hamilton. Strangely, Dr Hamilton does not mention that he used to be Chairman of the Climate Institute, and perhaps this is the real source of his bitterness. That aside, Erwin has been instrumental in keeping the Australian Government’s hand to fire when it comes to climate action, and his patient approach suggests he knows that this is a long game to be won by engaged experts and not by the whingers braying on the sidelines.
Clive Hamilton would probably call these people environmental sell-outs. I call them true environmental activists and ultimately, success stories. They have kept to their principles but adapted to the corporate/government world, and they have made a material difference.
This is something that the reminiscent Clive Hamilton can only aspire to.
As an old campaigner, I implicitly understand the need to condense complex matters into sound bites or slogans. The problem with stripping the details out of an issue and reducing it to a memorable phrase is that people tend to defer to their own interpretation of what that phrase actually means.
This can be dangerous territory for a politician or party if the sound bite or slogan implies an undertaking. While the nature of the undertaking may be clear in the mind of the spruiker, it might have an entirely different meaning to the audience.
Kevin Rudd learned this lesson the hard way. During the 2007 federal election campaign, Rudd differentiated himself from John Howard on two points: he would scrap Work Choices and ratify Kyoto. Neither Rudd nor the ALP made any effort to explain what ratification of the Kyoto protocol meant in practical terms. They were content with the electorate inferring from this undertaking that Australia’s ratification would fix climate change.
But of course, it did not. In reality, ratification of Kyoto granted access to a number of climate mitigation activities including a future global emissions trading scheme amongst parties to the protocol and emission credits for businesses investing in greenhouse gas reducing projects in developing countries.
After formally ratifying the Kyoto protocol, Rudd subtly shifted his language to the need for Australia to adopt an emissions trading scheme to fix climate change. Having trusted the Prime Minister on ratification, and feeling no adverse effects, Australians were comfortable in the belief that adopting an ETS would be equally painless.
Green words not green deeds
It is important to understand that while people say they want environmental action, and that they are prepared to pay for it, their actions disprove their words. Australian green energy schemes continue to languish in the single-digit percentages because people do not want to pay a premium for a product that has no discernable difference. Surveys of grocery shoppers have found that the actual contents of their trolleys undermine their previously- stated preference for green products.
In reality, most people don’t want to pay more to be environmentally friendly – unless the expense can be expressed in a way that can be seen such as having a water tank or driving a hybrid car or carrying a green canvas shopping bag.
This is where Rudd came unstuck.
The point of an ETS is to wean an economy off fossil fuels. This is done by putting a price on carbon so that fossil fuel based products become more expensive and the renewable based products start to look competitive in comparison. That’s the economic theory.
Problems with decarbonising Australia’s economy
There are several problems with this theory for Australia. Firstly, 80% of Australia’s electricity is generated from coal and we have coal reserves that could last for several hundred years more. Our plentiful coal has allowed electricity prices to remain consistently low, and as a result we currently have the third lowest electricity prices in the world.
Not only have these low electricity prices brought energy intensive industries to Australia, they have contributed directly to the Australian community’s quality of life. Around 11.5% of Australia’s greenhouse emissions come from households and another 14% from transport (most of which is cars, trucks and planes). An ETS would place cost pressure on the households to move them away from the activities and products that use fossil fuels.
Once voters began to realise this, they felt conned and unhappy. This unhappiness has clearly been picked up by party polling, evidenced by both major parties moving to distance themselves from an ETS before the impending election.
While the ETS is now on the backburner, we will nevertheless continue to hear the latest slogan promoting the need to decarbonise the Australian economy if we are to fix climate change.
As point of substance, this contention is patently absurd. Australia contributes less than 2% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. No amount of reduction in Australia will make a material difference to the phenomenon. Even if every Australian house had solar panels, and every family drove a hybrid car and grew their own vegetables, there would hardly be a perceptible dip in global emissions.
So, as a point of symbolism, should Australia decarbonise its economy to show leadership and coax other developed nations into doing their fare share to mitigate the problem that they originally created?
If leadership leading to deep cuts in global emissions is the real objective of Australian action on climate change, then penalising Australians for their quality of life will not achieve that objective.
An unconventional solution
There is no way to stop the developing world from using coal in the foreseeable future. These nations are rightly focused on bringing their people out of poverty and will use the most reliable, affordable and safe means of electricity generation available to them.
The International Energy Agency has projected that from the year 2000 to 2030 around $16 trillion dollars will be spent on developing and providing energy to the global population. Over that same period, the number of people with no access at all to a reliable/commercial supply of energy will reduce from two billion to one billion. Those of us sitting in our air-conditioned homes and offices need to bear this in mind when we nod sagely about the need to decarbonise the economy. In 2030 there will still be people on this planet burning cow dung to heat their homes and cook their dinner.
Where does that leave Australia? I believe we can take credible climate action that has both substance and symbolism. Firstly we need to take the economists out of the equation – they have no interest in the human cost of their proposals. Stop focusing on the business case too – there are too many vested business interests on either side of the climate change debate for the market to sort this out.
My solution lets all Australians feel involved, with minimal financial pain, and with greenhouse gas reductions being deployed where they are needed most.
Firstly, impose a greenhouse levy on all taxpayers in the same manner as the Medicare levy, which currently raises around $8 billion each year. Attaching the levy to income ensures that those who earn more will pay more, and those who are disadvantaged or unemployed will not pay at all.
Secondly, use the funds to develop and deploy clean energy projects in the developed world – particularly those countries that have the potential to contribute the most greenhouse gas emissions in future. In doing so, the Australian people would be getting more global greenhouse action for their dollar than they could ever hope to achieve at home.
Does this proposal make economic sense? No. Does it make business sense? No. Does it make sense in terms of Australia being a leader and making deep cuts in greenhouse emissions? Yes.
Maybe its time we changed the way we looked at climate change in Australia, and even the world.
At the risk of being called naïve or an apologist, I feel compelled to challenge the demonisation of big business.
While it is something that has been troubling me for a while, my concerns have become crystalised by the anti-mining mutterings of my esteemed colleagues on Twitter.
In recent days, the more we non-economists hear about the misnamed Resource Super Profit Tax, the more sensible it seems. But it has taken serious journalists such as Peter Martin and George Megalogenis to take the time to translate this arcane but practical arrangement into plain English.
We should not have been subjected to the shrill objections and counter-claims of the mining industry and Government. Any government worth its salt on the issues management front could have turned this resource and risk sharing arrangement into a good news story by bringing the mining industry into the tent and getting them on side before the RSPT announcement was made.
Is this me being naïve? Or did the Government want the mining industry to be seen to be taking a hit swiftly after it dodged an earlier bullet with the abandonment of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme?
Did the Government consciously demonise the mining industry in an attempt to regain a few brownie points from the electorate?
Perhaps the answer can be found in the title for the new scheme. The moniker given to the Resource Super Profit Tax smacks of the same hyperbole applied to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. The RSPT is no more a real tax than CO2 is real pollution. But these labels provide a mechanism for the government to simultaneously suggest there is a serious problem and that it is addressing this problem with a new acronym, I mean, program.
Aside from this, is the demonisation of the Australian mining industry justified?
Yes there have been sins in the past. And there are still some out-riders who think they can still get away with it dodgy practices. But it is no more logical to burden all miners with the sins of the few, than it is to do the same with teachers, car drivers, or internet users.
Mining companies work on 20 and 30 year timeframes. They understand better than most of us the bounty and the limitations of the earth. Even so, it took them a while to realise that the natural environment is not limitless in its capacity to rebound from the stresses of mineral extraction. It took them even longer to understand how their operations impact on people and societies. But they did come to understand these factors and they took action to change.
Around 10 years ago, led by Australian mining company CEOs, the global industry took the unprecedented step of commissioning an international NGO called the International Institute for Environment and Development (www.iied.org) to run the world’s biggest community attitudes survey. The survey was to find out what communities, governments, environmentalists and other activists in both the developing and developed worlds thought about the mining industry and what they wanted to change about how the industry went about its business.
Some mining companies walked away from this process because they found it too confronting. To my knowledge, none of those companies operate or have a presence in Australia. Some NGOs walked away too because they thought it was a greenwashing exercise. But after two years of the community talking and the mining industry listening, some real outcomes emerged. Perhaps these were less ambitious than some would have liked. But they were a start. A new mining entity was established at the global level to continue the discussion with NGOs and to deliver the undertakings.
My point is that mining companies know better than most that they have to be “good corporate citizens” in order to keep their social license to operate.
It is these companies who have built roads and communities alongside their operations in rural and remote Australia. They have built infrastructure for water and electricity generation. They have education and employment programs for their local people. They have invested in these communities with their shareholders’ funds because governments would not. And as a result they have a relationship with their communities that politicians and other companies could only ever dream of.
While some critics of mining are prepared to acknowledge this investment, they call it the resource curse – communities and economies made dependent on mining revenue that are left stranded when the operation ceases. This may well occur if a mine is closed before its time due to emergency or insolvency. But most major operations include the cost of withdrawal from the community in their initial project costings. This withdrawal includes building capacity within the community to ensure that it can continue to thrive once the mining project has concluded. If you want a real example of that strategy, then look no further than the thriving ex-mining town of Newcastle.
I’ll have other things to say about the anti-corporate, anti-capitalist bandwagon. But for today, I’ll finish by saying this: when a politician points at someone and says they are bad and need to be dealt with, first ask yourself why the politician wants you to believe him …….