Net zero attracts net stupidity and net self-righteousness

We are seeing history repeat itself in the government. The same small group of climate deniers who killed off the National Energy Guarantee in Turnbull’s years are now holding Australia back from confronting what the great majority of Australians, and people across the planet, see as our biggest existential threat: climate change.

The NEG was welcomed by nearly all industry and community groups including the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia, Business Council of Australia and Australian Industry Group. Unions also welcomed it. Many groups wanted more done but were just pleased that something would finally happen, allowing business and society to plan and act with more assurance about the future. 

But a handful of people in the government decided they knew better — and set about destroying the government unless the NEG was removed. Ultimately this group won. Society and democracy lost.

Now we again see these recalcitrants at their destructive and self-righteous best as they try to stop Australia joining the rest of the planet confronting this challenge with targets on net zero emissions.

There is no need to go into the facts around climate change — the facts are there for anyone who has an objective bone in their body. Like all sectors of society, there are some in the small business community who deny climate change and get annoyed with me for promoting action, but they are very much in the minority.

What I have observed is that many who deny climate science also appear to be those who deny COVID is real, or that vaccines are necessary. These minority groups are entitled to their opinion — we live in a working democracy. What they are not entitled to do is to prevent action that’s consistent with the wishes of most Australians. That is a failed democracy.

And so we come to the role of our elected politicians in general and the Nationals in particular. Does Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce support such a destruction of democracy where the wishes of the minority take precedence over those of the vast majority? Joyce may deny he supports them, but he is one of those who killed off the NEG and has consistently pushed against the tide of the majority opinion on climate change and derided the scientific evidence of same. 

That is not to say there aren’t valid economic and employment issues for regional Australian communities that rely heavily on coalmining and associated activities. But surely the first step is to agree on the need for action — as is now being asked — and then set about determining how to support those communities in a smooth and fair transformation to alternative industries.

Closing coalmines and power stations overnight, or without proper planning and process, is not possible and would be socially and economically irresponsible. There will also continue to be a demand for good quality Australian coal in the near to medium term, but we — as the coal industry is doing — must explore how best to achieve net zero emissions in line with the aspirations of most Australians.

Just like our big electricity companies, our coal enterprises must seek to progressively and responsibly reduce investment in high-emissions activities and increase investment in net zero emissions activities — that is, after all, what investors in these companies expect.

In the past Australia has responded well to changes in industry (e.g. textiles, clothing and footwear, car manufacturing, dairy farming and steel production) due to initiatives by various governments, the Fraser and Hawke governments in particular, such as tariff removal or reduction.

The regional New South Wales economies of Wollongong and Newcastle, for example, were particularly impacted by the downsizing of steel production in their economies, but have successfully reduced their reliance on this industry over many years with positive and well-targeted government support.

The point is that change sought by the majority should be supported by government — not opposed by it. Based on past actions, such assistance can include:

There is an opportunity — and a need — to develop similar responses to the current situation. Action could include:

• Developing a tripartite Coal Industry Restructuring* Authority (CIRA) or a similar organisation; this would also encompass energy, but politically and socially coal is seen as the issue
• Develop pilot activities with selected communities
• Develop short term and long term plans for the industry based on information from those affected and on micro and macroeconomic analyses
• Funding to be in partnership with energy and mining companies.

There are more actions that can be undertaken, but we must first confront and defeat the few, the very loud and belligerent few, who care nought about the future and only about themselves and their beliefs. 

We should listen to those affected or potentially affected: the workers and their families, the small business owners in those communities and industries, and to the leaders of the communities — not to climate deniers and the noisy minority.