Suggestions that Tony Abbott's inept handling of the parliamentary travel entitlements row may have weakened his standing within the Liberal Party seemed to evaporate on Tuesday when the Coalition announced a scaled-back carbon emissions target ahead of December's UN global climate conference in Paris. Despite senior ministers pushing for the government to adopt draft proposals cutting Australian emissions by 30 per cent by 2030, cabinet settled instead on a 26 per cent cut based on 2005 levels. This is less than most other advanced economies are promising and likely to be ineffectual (so environmentalists and climate scientists argue) given the present rate of global warming. The preparedness of Coalition MPs to sign off on Cabinet's post-2020 target indicates that on climate change at least, Mr Abbott's authority is undiminished.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
A strong desire to protect Australian jobs and to preserve current economic growth rates are the reasons Mr Abbott has proffered for adopting the lesser target. And the Prime Minister is also preparing to argue that Australia's strong population growth is a burden which requires a reduced climate mitigation load. These are hardly concerns that are unique to Australia, and the Coalition has deservedly been damned in many quarters for its "I'm all right, Jack" recalcitrance at a time when other governments around the world have now accepted the need for concrete action to prevent runaway climate change. Even previous hold-outs like Canada have moved to shore up their emissions pledges, isolating Australia further.
That the Coalition might be reluctant conscripts in the war to reduce fossil-fuel burn is hardly surprising. Much of Australia's prosperity rests on coal exports, and no government would threaten that revenue stream or endorse policies which threatened job losses in the mining industry. However, the Coalition's determination to extract every last dollar from coal, irrespective of the environmental damage, threatens to turn Australia into an international embarrassment. Mr Abbott may wear that as a badge of honour, but if the present course is maintained, pariah status for Australia (with attendant sanctions) seems assured.
The other troubling aspect of Mr Abbott's mindset is his belief that Australia faces economic stagnation unless its pell-mell exploitation of coal is allowed to continue. Investment in, and uptake of, renewables can be concurrent with coal burning, however. Indeed, China and India (two of Australia's biggest thermal coal export markets) are doing just that, although their stated long-term goal is to drastically reduce coal use. That alone should give the Coalition pause for thought. Mr Abbott's refusal to admit that renewables could create economic activity sufficient to make up for coal's decline also flies in the face of economic reality.
Were it to be viewed in purely nationalist terms, the Prime Minister's support of coal mining might be admirable. But it is driven in large part by a desire to wedge Labor on power prices, and will be seen by many as cynical, egotistical and entirely lacking in merit. His government's post-2020 emissions pledge is likely to be judged in the same harsh light in December.
