The end of the climate wars? Not with an election on the horizon

Australian Industry Group chief executive Innes Willox posed the question during an online forum this week, held against the backdrop of the COP26 summit in Glasgow.

Business Council of Australia president Tim Reed - whose organisation has played a part in the toxic debate of the past two decades - was cautiously optimistic.

"I think [they] absolutely are," Reed replied.

His optimism sprung frong the fact Labor and now the Coalition have committed to net zero emissions by 2050.

It had been a "painful" and "costly" road, he said, but the major parties were there.

Reed noted the obvious disagreement over 2030 and other interim targets, but he was confident the lengthy conflict was far closer to its end than its start.

It is hard to disagree with that assessment.

There is acceptance in the political mainstream that the planet is warming and the global energy mix is changing in response.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Labor leader Anthony Albanese agree on this fundamental point.

But anyone preparing to celebrate the end of the climate wars would be wise to hold the balloons and streamers - for now, at least.

Why the caution? It's simple.

Those with the power to end the climate conflict appear to not want to do so.

Indeed, the climate wars have only run for so long because the major parties - more often than not the Liberals and Nationals - have seen political value in fighting them, in extending them from one election to the next.

See Tony Abbott's campaign against the carbon tax in 2013, or the Coalition's attacks on Bill Shorten in 2019.

With the next federal election on the horizon, the Coalition is clearly readying itself for another fight.

Morrison and Energy Minister Angus Taylor have spent the week touring NSW and Victoria, spruiking their "technology not taxes" approach to cutting carbon emissions.

There was money for a feasibility study on a green hydrogen port in Newcastle on Monday, an electric vehicles policy (which wouldn't "end the weekend") on Tuesday, and an extra $500 million for clean-tech start-ups on Wednesday.

Whether these will deliver the massive emission cuts needed to decarbonise Australia's economy is, at best, unknown.

Consider the electric car plan. The government predicts its $250 million strategy will help abate 8.3 million tonnes of carbon dioxide by 2035 - that's a tiny fraction of the amount emitted in Australia in one year.

And the technologies which stand to benefit from the new fund, including carbon capture and storage? Many are either unproven at scale, unproven at all, or don't yet exist.

But whether these policies help the environment in 10 or 20 years' time is not the Coalition's main preoccupation when it comes to climate policies.

Not when there's an election on the horizon.

No, Morrison and Co. see a more immediate, self-serving role for these policies; helping to craft a political narrative and, as ever, wedge the Labor Party.

This is the new battleground for the climate wars.

The slogans "technology not taxes" and "choices not mandates" might be uttered in the context of selling or defending a climate policy, but they are part of a far-reaching message Morrison is trying to sell to the public about his approach to governing after the pandemic.

Having had our freedoms curtailed by state authorities for almost two years, he's trying to convince voters that the Liberals and Nationals are ready to leave the public and businesses to their own devices.

Similarly, he wants them to think Labor would do the opposite - on climate policy, on the economy, on everything.

He's shown himself more than willing to dance around the truth, or brazenly attempt to rewrite history - "I didn't campaign against electric cars" - in order to sell this point.

"I think Australians have had enough of governments telling them what to do, frankly," he said earlier this week.

"We've just been through two years of governments having to tell people what to do. For Liberals, that does not come easily.

"It's not something we instinctively do, and it's not something I think Australians want to see more of in the future."

Of course, the Coalition's rhetoric isn't always matched by its actions. These champions of the free-market are, you might recall, stumping up for a $600 million gas-fired power station in Kurri Kurri, NSW, which experts say isn't needed.

It was one of its own ministers - Nationals MP Keith Pitt - who suggested taxpayers underwrite a $250 billion scheme to prop up coal and gas projects.

Then there's its obsession with pinning Labor in awkward positions.

Morrison and Taylor this week launched a fresh attempt to expand the remit of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to allow it to fund carbon capture and storage, a technology critics say is only being pushed to help extend the life of the fossil fuel-industry.

Labor has previously teamed up with the Greens to sink the government's (legally questionable) attempt to allow its green banks to fund non-green projects.

The Coalition hopes Anthony Albanese does this again, opening the door for it to attack Labor for choosing to side with the Greens over coal and gas workers.

There are signs Labor won't fall into the trap, with its climate and energy spokesman Chris Bowen this week not ruling out supporting the proposal if it meant more money was on the table.

Focus will soon shift to Labor's own policies, in particular its 2030 or 2035 emissions-reduction target.

Regardless of what target it sets, there will be attacks.

The climate wars aren't over, not with an election on the horizon.

Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can continue to access our trusted content: