Forgive the crude analogy but I learned as a very young boy that whatever relief I might get from emptying my bladder would nevertheless end up very messy if I did it facing the prevailing wind.  Reducing the burden of carbon polluting gasses driving rising global temperatures and severe weather events by burning less coal and gas for electricity generation in Australia while necessary is not sufficient. If we keep exploring for, extracting, and exporting ever increasing volumes of these fossil fuels to be burned elsewhere the global burden of carbon pollution will increase not decrease. Without stretching the metaphor very far we will be pissing in the wind of changes that threaten if not human existence at the very least much of the political, social, economic, ecological framework that defines our current way of life on this planet. 

Australia is a global player in this crisis

Australia is one of the largest global producers of coal, gas and to a lesser extent oil. It is the world’s third largest exporter with over two thirds of its production exported to be burned elsewhere. Together, domestic and exported fuel production is effectively contributing about 13% of the global CO2 burden. Faced with an urgent need to stop all further expansion and strategically phase out these sources of pollution our government instead provides $11+ billion annually as subsidies to companies contributing to this carbon pollution. Worse, since coming to office in 2022 it has approved significant expansion of coal and gas mining, and applications in the pipeline for exploration and extraction licences will permit a further 20 bn tons of CO2 — about 40% of future projected annual global emissions! On our own Australia will be completely blowing the remaining carbon pollution budget needed to keep global temperature rises from pre-industrial levels to below 1.5 degrees. At best, the world is currently on track for close to a rise of 3 degrees with a globally catastrophic 5-6 degrees likely unless there is significant international commitment to phase-out reliance on coal, oil and gas as the primary energy sources for use in domestic, industrial-commercial, transport, and agricultural settings.  

Developing and effective policy response

This challenge needs to addressed by Labor governments here at federal and state levels.  While playing catchup on ten years of inaction under the Coalition, indeed denial regarding the contribution of carbon pollution to the climate emergency, the current government’s targets include: 

• Australian electricity supply of 83% from renewables by 2050
• 43% reduction in Australian CO2 emissions by 2030 
• ‘Net Zero’ emissions by 2050 

Yet even these are woefully short of the contribution needed to meet the challenge of limiting temperature increases to 1.5 degrees. Perhaps worse, they rely heavily on highly dubious ‘offsetting’ where claimed tree planting and non-land-clearance schemes are used to claim semi-permanent natural storage of carbon rather than actual pollution reduction.

A more realistic, rational and indeed essential approach would include (alongside policies for land use, agri-food industry development, water supply, and biodiversity conservation), clear and unambiguous commitments to closing down Australia’s coal, oil and gas industries on short-term rather than long term timeframes.  In practical terms this would include:

• Immediate removal of all forms of government subsidy to coal oil and gas industries and diverting these funds to support development of clean energy production, distribution and appropriate forms of community ownership. 
• A clear statement of federal policy (using ‘Foreign-Affairs powers’ if necessary to override the States) that no further licences will be given for exploration or extraction of coal oil or gas in Australia. This sends a clear signal to the world that Australia is closing the leaking tap that results in CO2 emissions from burning these fuels and leakage of even more shorter-term polluting methane gas from extraction and distribution. 
• Voluntary, or if needed statutory, ‘fuel-reservation’ arrangements that ensure fuels extracted under existing licences first meet Australian needs for the period of transition at affordable prices before being considered for export — and with royalty and taxation arrangements on these exports that reflect the value of these as non-renewable Australian resources that can be used to support domestic consumers and the transition to renewable energy technologies. 
• A comprehensive review and where necessary revocation of export licences such that no Australian fossil fuels can be exported to countries with less stringent policies and programs for carbon pollution reduction than our own in Australia. 

A focus on the alternatives 

We can anticipate opposition to such policies — indeed regurgitation of some of the old T.I.N.A. (There Is No Alternative) in support of continuing or only slowly reforming current practices. Against this, we will need to develop TAMBA (There Are Many Better Alternatives) arguments.  The main arguments against Australia reducing its fossil exports are that: it will cost jobs, increase prices, stop other countries from developing, hurt the poor and disadvantaged here and overseas, and ultimately be futile as other suppliers fill the vacuum ; ‘if we don’t supply these fuels someone else will’.  

To these arguments, note first that the number of Australian jobs in fossil fuel mining is actually quite small. These jobs will be phased out inevitably over time as the world is forced to adapt to the climate emergency. What is needed is a strategically planned ‘just transition’ where training for and investment in new ‘good’ jobs is provided ahead of any closures. What is planned here is that there will be no more jobs created through permits for, and investment in, new fossil fuel projects — investments that will increase the scale of the crisis, take resources away from development of jobs in renewable alternatives, and ultimately result in both unsustainable jobs and stranded assets — financial and human. 

As noted above the scale of emissions from exported fuels that are not counted as our responsibility dwarfs those that we are see ourselves as ‘accountable’ for. Would policies for reducing these alongside our own domestic emissions have the damaging economic impacts claimed — and be ineffectual anyway as other suppliers fill the gaps in the global marketplace? Maybe, but given the scale of our current contribution to supply, other countries scaling up to take advantage of our decision will be temporary. The economics might be temporarily disadvantageous to Australia but would drive up international prices (from which remaining Australian exports would benefit). The increased costs would impact the disadvantaged here and in other countries — and require offsetting measures to tackle such inequalities in the short term. But on a global scale, and in the mid-to-longer term, the overall economic consequences would be significantly advantageous for all — protecting all from the more disastrous consequences of the impending climate catastrophe and driving take-up of what will be increasingly cheaper renewable alternatives. 

New political economic thinking

Finally, rethinking the political economy (see earlier article on values based political economy in Issue 5) we may need to argue for a shift from the marginally Keynesian approaches that have found some cross-party support to a more radical approach. There is massive investment needed to make the transition from fossil-fuels to a globally competitive renewable energy-based economy. This might usefully embrace more of the Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) approach that suggests money for investment is not ‘borrowed’ from existing pools of ‘savings’ but created with few limits by central banks of countries that have their own currencies. In such a framework, the funds needed for investment to permit rapid transition to ‘clean’ energy as the basis for a long-term sustainable economy are only limited by the impact on inflation vis a vis other national economies — many of which are facing the same challenges and open to the same solutions. In any case, the time has come to reframe current monetary policies such that they better reflect the kind of balance between managing inflation and delivering full employment that operated in the earlier Keynesian era. Back then, far from being a curse, inflation was seen as beneficial in eroding over time the government debt that had been incurred through spending to achieve full employment.   

A similar case can be made for rethinking our stigmatising and often humiliating welfare system and the way governments’ attempt to tackle social inequality by targeting the unemployed, disabled, work-injured, child-care, aged-care, housing and energy, and retired populations. As argued elsewhere much could be simplified, delivered more humanely, equitably and effectively (perhaps even less expensively) through a system of universal basic income (UBI) as a of right for all, supplemented with a genuinely progressive system of taxation on all income made in excess to the UBI.

Crisis as both challenge and opportunity? 

Given the scale of the crises that are being triggered by the climate-driven changes to environments, economies and, increasingly, every-day living, it is perhaps time to think in terms of more radical and holistic changes that put the needs of people before profit and lay foundations for something more sustainable in the future.  Such changes to whatever extent and in whatever forms emerge cannot be delivered without policy changes at the national government level. However, they cannot be delivered by top-down approaches alone. As well, we will need bottom-up pressures and practical initiatives that we know are needed and can be delivered now. Initiatives that tailor changes to situations on the ground that engage and involve working people and their communities.  

To suggest one small example ... 

The argument has been made that Australian energy needs could be met by using existing industrial and commercial rooftop space for photovoltaic solar panels and equally available space for intermediate-scale batteries that together would service the needs of their neighbourhood for a more ‘distributed’ electricity supply — and, in doing so, reduce the need to expand the existing electricity grid system designed for an earlier era of centralised fossil-fuel generation. The idea is sound. The challenge is getting it to happen at scale — building on pilots and models to roll out a national program. Unlikely without involvement of a range of stakeholders in the enterprises and communities where such systems might be located.  

An obvious starting point would be to initiate discussion with the workers in the enterprises — many of whom are also local residents — about how demands for such initiatives might be included in collective bargaining with employers through their unions. Lessons from successful experiments can then be shared with workers in other places and become models for industry-wide take-up.  Several unions already support rank-and-file groups exploring adaptations to climate change. An action-research project that worked through these to identify how workers and community stakeholders see the challenge, their ideas for what is needed, and how they can organise for these would seem to be on the cards.

And coming back to my early lesson, pissing down-wind, not only avoids a wet mess it also lets me see more clearly the path the prevailing breeze is pointing and aiding me to move with it at my back rather than struggling into it. 

Dr Tony Webb is a long-time Fabians stalwart, LEAN research lead, and regular contributor to The Fabians Review. Here he turns his attention to climate change, pointing out that an Australian economy partly funded by the export of fossil fuels, even if not burnt or used within Australia, still drives climate change.