So Malcolm Turnbull has given a speech about climate policy to the Young Liberals Convention in Canberra (does that count as ‘annoucing policy’?) riffing off a rich heritage of Conservative climate campaigners from Thatcher, to Schwarznegger, David Cameron and, somewhat ominously for the CPRS, John Key. Turnbull mentioned three prongs to capture “gigantic opportunities for CO2 abatement that the Rudd Government has ignored”:
- A Green Carbon Initiative – a comprehensive biocarbon strategy
- Dramatically increasing energy efficiency, especially in buildings
- 2 CCS plants and support for wave and tidal power
Which is to say that there are no great surprises. It must be the sign of the times that a businessman of Turnbull’s stature should lambast Rudd’s “theological and political … focus” on carbon pricing as a “litmus test of “belief” in climate change.” The Liberals have, of course, commissioned their own review into the CPRS White Paper – due in February – which will, amongst other things, probably find that the current southward trend of commodity prices are likely to be generate a huge number of EITE permits for ostensibly ‘Business as Usual’ Activity.
Of course, it wouldn’t be climate policy without an obligatory pissing contest of numbers mention of targets and trajectories. “We aim to achieve, by 2020, additional annual reductions of at least 150 million tonnes (Mt) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e).”
Targets are essentially meaningless without taking the policy intent into account. Statements like Turnbull’s remind of those Persian carpet liquidation ads. “90% off!!!” 90% off what?
And the intent, of course, is to occupy the scant ground left by Rudd’s gigantic wedge. It’s hard to imagine “We won’t let jobs go offshore either” and “Conservatives have done great work on climate change over the years” being vote winning memes without some very hard work. Howard’s inward, backward looking refusal to sign Kyoto has cast a long shadow that Barnaby Joyce now stands a little too proudly in given its importance to Rudd’s election victory.
The soil carbon proposals themselves considerable attention for a few reasons. Turnbull cites Dr. Christine Jones (see this statement and this video) for the figures. It’s interesting that she’s spruiking an approach that could make Australia ‘carbon neutral’ by changing agricultural practices and help the health of the soils. Ironically, she’s also well attuned to the eyewatering costs of CCS.
This is where things will get interesting. For progressive conservatives like Jones and Environment Business Australia, changes to land use practices simply buy time in the move a non-hydrocarbon based economy. Fiona Wain, the EBA’s CEO, has speculated openly about carbon prices north of $50 – a figure Labor won’t touch and would send the Nationals into conniptions. Turnbull for his part, quotes the IEA
“The world’s energy system is at a crossroads. Current global trends in energy supply and consumption are patently unsustainable.”
… a terrific quote followed by no mention of renewable power whatsoever! How much money for PV? Solar Thermal? Off grid? Wind? No mention even of what kind of support ‘wave and tidal’ power might need.
Elsewhere: Anna Rose at Rooted blog, John Warhurst at APO on Turnbull’s two front war, Joshua Gans, Business Spectator summarises, SMH on the soil policy, Bernard Keane in Crikey [ht: Peter Wood in comments]
Earlier: Barnaby’s Choice ETS Ramifications, Stimulus Round 2 – Where it might go
I’d never of it before but I’m quite taken with Lovelock’s suggestion in New Scientist recently:
Bury charcoal.
Farmers take their organic wastes, burn them in low oxygen furnaces and bury the charcoal.
You’d have to remove the incentive to sell it as fuel though, so someone (the taxpayer) would have to buy it.
What possible reason would you have to bury charcoal in the first place? How about try logic? If thats not too much to ask?
http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/aboutus/news/recent-news/agriculture-news-releases/biochar-revolution
.
http://www.biochar-international.org/upcomingibiconferences/2009asiapacificregion.html
.
These links are to sites which provide some info about biochar . As a product biochar is still at an experimental stage but one which might move to large scale production some time in the not too distant future.
But why Murph? I put it to you that this is nothing less than the rebellion against reason and logic itself!
JM: that’s precisely what Malcolm is pushing as a centerpiece of Coalition policy.
It does appear to be a good idea. But pinning everything on it working as easily as it sounds is, as usual, extremely dumb policy. And it doesn’t matter a jot if we sequester 150 million tonnes of carbon annually if we burn an extra 200 million in our cars and power stations.
And that last bit is the part where Malcom and his mates cover their ears and sing ever more loudly “la la la I can’t hear you LA LA LA I STILL CAN’T HERE YOU HOCKEY STICK ANDREW BOLT BJORN LOMBORG”.
Margaret bloody Thatcher? Oh, well, that just about explains everything.
Yesterday I drove over 500 kms north to south in SA.
For most of the journey, and by ‘most’ I mean nearly all, there were virtually no trees in sight in what was once covered with scrubland that included tens of millions of trees.
In the place of what was once MAINLY woodland…nothing.
Bare ground with weeds and rocks alternating with stubble.
I don’t have google earth or equivalent but I reckon if you looked at such at SA north and east and west [over the gulfs] of Adelaide a fair amount of non urbanised ground would be bare…bare of anything except weeds, at a rough guess maybe 20-40%.
The rest would be stubble and a few trees, mainly scattered and a few clumps etc some of which would be native, houses, the space taken up by roads etc.
Yesterday I could have taken hundreds of photos spread over that journey and the vast majority of those photos would have less than a handfull of trees in sight.
Thats not mentioning soil erosion.
With all respect people I don’t think ‘easterners’, QLDers in particular, appreciate how dry and barren most of Australia is and that specifically includes our ‘agricultural’ country once you leave the east coast and pop over the mountains.
I know that when I visit eastern Vic/NSW/QLD in summer I find the relative green, teh ‘lushness’ amazing, its a different world to where us ‘westerners’ live.
Mani @ 4, you were pointed towards a few articles about biochar, and here’s another one. Also, this bloke has a few things to say about the importance of carbon in the soil.
Before you put anything to anyone again, I suggest you make an effort to educate yourself if, indeed, you are educable.
Only tangentially related to this and an ETS, but I noticed that Senator Steve Fielding was advertising for a Senior Policy Advisor on the weekend. The missus and I were wondering what sort of a deep cover mole we could get to infiltrate his office and seek to do some real good for Australia. Imagine it, you could be hugely influential on the design and passage of the final ETS legislation.
‘Course, you’d have to pretend to be a happy-clappy capital C Christian. And maybe sleep with Steve from time to time.
But someone oughta do it, for the sake of the country.
Looks like you just volunteered, wilful. (I can’t do it, I don’t live in Victoria.)
Well, I seem to remember the Blessed Margaret being fairly anti-coal, although I always thought it was more because the people digging it up were nasty, militant trades unionists than for any environmental reasons. It certainly didn’t seem to affect the import and use of vast quantities of poor quality but ever-so-cheap coal from Europe.
Yes good point – I imagine Turnbull has that in mind when he dons his green coat, plus the steady ingress of Green votes on inner city electorates.
Bernard Keane has written on Turnbull and Hunt’s approach to emissions and land use at crikey.