7.31........................................................................................................................32 LABOR RANT

crossbench’ by Mike Foley of The Sydney Morning Herald. Words by Sebastian Andrew

A few days before this was written, Energy Minister Chris Bowen came out and announced that he’d deliberately designed most of Labor’s climate policies to ensure that no new legislation was needed to implement them. Naturally, this is because Labor knows their climate policies fall far short of what the Greens, who hold the balance of power in the Senate would be willing to accept, and god forbid they’d have to go further. Bowen went on to argue that they’d been given a ‘mandate’ by winning a majority government and therefore have the right to ignore the Greens and Teals and implement their own policies.

First off, I find this argument by Bowen simplistic and annoyingly wrong. Yes, Labor won a majority government. No one’s disputing that. But Bowen’s assumes that all of Labor’s voters are supporters of their climate policies. That being the entire 4,630,223 people who voted for them, not a single one supports more ambitious climate policies, such as those proposed by the Greens. That all Labor voters expect them to only implement Labor’s rather unambitious targets and not go a step further. Labor is not only ignoring what’s likely a significant proportion of their base, but they’re risking further alienating them and putting seats at risk. It also ignores that while Labor likely won the seats it did, mostly based on cost-of-living and other issues, there was a tremendous swing to the Greens and Independents on issues of climate. The crossbench doubled in size and bar one (Dai Le), and every new Independent elected at the 2022 election is there because communities desired stronger climate change action. Greens and Independents ran on targets explicitly more ambitious than Labor’s. How can Labor see this and not get the hint that the public wants more?

Before I go further, what are the policy differences? Labor supports reaching net-zero emissions by 2050, 43% emissions cuts by 2030, and increased investment in renewables.. The Greens want net-zero by 2035 or earlier, 75% emissions cuts by 2030, and an immediate ban on new coal, oil, and gas projects. There is no uniform policy amongst the Teals but some have voiced support for 60% emissions reduction by 2030. A report by the non-profit Climate Analytics warns that Labor’s 2030 plans (which it promises to meet but refuses to legislate) are consistent with a rise in global warming by 2˚C. The IPCC has warned that reaching this level of warming would have disastrous consequences for health and ecosystems globally, even in Australia. While 1.5˚C of warming still promises increased weather events and environmental damage, the IPCC states that even meeting this level is far more favourable than doing nothing which inevitably will lead to greater global warming..

Labor’s policies and refusal to go further isn’t just ignoring the public and a foolish electoral strategy; all arguments of electoral implications aside, it’s flying in the face of what scientific evidence is saying needs to be done for the survival of the planet, and us. Bowen dismissed criticism of this target and stated that 43% is consistent to reach 2050. Two points; sorry to tell you this, but these people don't know what they’re talking about. And it’s cute to mention 2050 as if this target hasn’t already been rubbished for falling far short of what’s necessary.

The last few years have highlighted the threat posed by climate change to Australia. And it’s hard to understand why off the back of record hot temperatures, devastating bushfires and once in a hundred-year floods (all events which are expected to get only worse) that Labor would see what’s happening, talk about a science-based approach towards climate change in the election, and to then take what those scientists have warned and promised to still undershoot. It’s foolish for Labor to see the message that was sent with the election of the Teals, and the surge in support for the Greens – and the loss of one of their seats and near loss of another – and to shrug their shoulders and insist that the public is fully in support of their weak targets. To think that ‘soft Labor’ voters aren’t afraid to give their preferences to the Greens at the next election. Or that ‘soft Liberal’ voters concerned about the climate won’t skip right over them in favour of a Green or an Independent. And it’s aggravating as someone who’s going to be growing up in a world with less biodiversity, intensely hot summers, water pressures (and I have it pretty well off! There’s many people across Australia who’ll be doing it far, far worse) to watch the Labor party whiff at these concerns. Is there time for Labor to change course and embrace more ambitious, scientifically accurate targets? Yes. But do I think Labor will continue to marginalise those calling for more action and keep their middle of the road targets? Also yes.

33