… and time to get real about climate, say Greens

Greens Leader Christine Milne has lamented the lack of urgency in the debate about climate change in Australia – despite the recent heat-wave across the continent – and said she predicted that both mainstream parties would seek to avoid the issue in the upcoming Federal election.

In an interview with RenewEconomy, Senator Milne called for more submissions to the Senate inquiry into extreme weather events – the deadline is this Friday – with the aim of keeping the issue at the front of the political debate. She lamented the lack of a proper debate about the link between extreme weather and climate change in Australia, pointing to The Australian’s front page “scoop” on Tuesday suggesting no link between sea level rise due to climate change, just as the IPCC gathered to meet in Tasmania to discuss the next issue of it climate change analysis. The Australian story was immediately rebuked by the author of the report that was quoted in the article, saying his study had come to no such conclusion.

“You would think that Australia sweltering as it has, in case of the heat wave, you would think with BoM having to put new colours of heat map in Australia, that that should bring home to you what is going on,” Milne said.

“Unfortunately, there are so many vested interests in Australia – with links into  both Labor and the Libs/National party – you will see no effort in Australia to link the two, and work out how we going to mitigate, to change the economy and reduce emissions.”

Milne said the Coalition was effectively “stranded” because of its commitment to abandon the carbon tax, and the Labor Party had a “schizophrenic” position on fossil fuels, implementing a carbon price but making no restrictions on the expansion of the coal business.

Despite the lack of sufficient action either in Australia or overseas, Milne did hold out the hope that technology breakthroughs – particularly in solar – would open a path to address the issue. She recently visited solar thermal plants in Spain that boasted 24-hour storage and a range of different technologies.

“We get so tired about hearing that it coud never happen, and solar can never provide 24-hour power, and they we were standing in the middle of it. It is now a matter of the economics of it, not a matter of whether  technology can deliver power after the sun goes down,” she said.

“Walking around that I felt like I stepped into the future, it was fantastic. And all I could think was here they are doing it in Spain, why aren’t we doing it in Australia when we got all the advantages in terms of physical space, we have got the right solar irradiation but we have got the mindset that sticks with old fossil fuel technologies.”

Here is an edited transcript of the interview.

You’ve made a call for more submissions to the Senate Inquiry into extreme weather events. What’s the urgency?

I’m trying to encourage people to put in a submission as quick as possible, given the current suite of extreme weather events around the country, bushfires and heat waves in particular. Submissions close on Friday, but people can make a preliminary submission – with a view to give evidence in a hearing later. The terms of reference are as broad as you can make them. In part it will be the scientists reaffirming global warming scenarios – we are going to be facing between 1C and 6C, as (IPCC chairman Rajendra) Pachauri said this morning – the science is stacking up on side of worst case scenarios. We will be looking at costs associated with extreme weather events –people in local communities, from councils and farmers – losing stock and fences, and we will be looking at the question of local government planning, particularly when it comes to flood and storm surges.

In Queensland, we’ve seen Premier Newman repeal those recommendations that prevented development on vulnerable coast areas. So we come to issues about what are the appropriate panning tools. Have we got right mix of  co-operation between emergency services – volunteer and professional fire brigades. And it is an attempt to bit of pressure on government, because the climate change adaptation framework has effectively stalled. I understand that the Productivity Commission has done a report on this, but the government hasn’t released it. They got a report from PwC, which found that heat waves have killed more people than any other type of natural disaster over last 200 years. For instance, in the Victorian fires 173 lost their lives– but 400 died from the week-long heat wave, the report highlighted that but we don’t have a national heat wave plan. PwC suggested that the national climate adaptation framework had stalled. The PC report has been in government hands since  September but we haven’t seen it yet.

Has the heat-wave had a similar impact on public perceptions of climate change as Hurricane Sandy in the US?

I’d like to think so – we have got the IPCC and 255 scientists meeting in Hobart this week, but then on the front page of The Australian – have you seen that – you find a story that claims no link between sea level rise and global warming, and quotes poor old John Church, one of our most eminent sea level scientists, who had to come out with Pachauri to say that the story is rubbish, that they had misused his research, that sea level is clearly linked to climate change and The Australian got it wrong.

Am I hopeful that there will be change? I think that the Coalition will continue with their line that because scientists will not say that one particular fire, one particular flood, one particular hot day can be directly linked to climate change, therefore it is not happening, therefore we don’t have to prepare for it. It’s just so ridiculous in the face of the trends, as Pachauri made clear in his (ABC) interview today. If you look at the trends, it is pretty much unmistakable, and any proper analysis makes that clear.

What needs to happen for that to change?

You would think that Australia sweltering as it has, in case of the heat wave, you would think with BoM having to put new colours of heat map in Australia, that that should bring home to you what is going on –  and more particularly bring home to people who care about species and future generations – that we are basically gambling our children’s future, and our ecosystems’ future. Unfortunately, there are so many vested interests in Australia – with links into  both Labor and the Libs/National party – you will see no effort in Australia to link the two, and work out how we going to mitigate, to change the economy and reduce emissions.

You have taken a bit of flak over your position on the Whitehaven case.

The issues with Jonathan Moylan – and a few commentators have noted on this – is that there have been people campaigning on rural and regional Australia, on the impact of coal mines on forests and  ecosystems and farming, for a long time. They have been ignored in the media, their concerns are not reported, and you are seeing an increasing level of desperation. They feel like it’s not being taken seriously. I’ve got sympathy with people who have tried in every which way in the normal channels, but have been ignored completely. So Moylan tried in the long tradition of direct action, so I certainly sympathise with his motivation. The actual tactic, I suppose, is not something that I would encourage. I’ve said pretty clearly that nobody is above the law – and those activist that break the law will face consequences.

If Australia is going to struggle to turn around it’s thinking in light of heat wave, are you encourage by any international development that could break that nexus.

I’m encouraged by the fact that the World Bank, the IEA, meteorological bureaux around the world, and scientists are becoming more outspoken, more direct in their language in pointing that door is closing on the opportunity to prevent global warming of more than 2C. And as you reported, they were pretty explicit about the impacts during the climate change talks in Doha. I’m encouraged that people are saying it straight, but the really critical play here is (US President) Barack Obama. There is a lot of hope that in second term he will take on climate. People have told me off the record that his second administration does intend to deal with climate change. I have not seen that yet. When asked about options, he has talked about it in terms of energy security for the US rather than climate context – so I don’t see anything that would shift the politics globally.

But my biggest hope is that the speed of the changes in the technology, particular in solar, and my hope is that these technologies become cheaper than persisting with fossil fuels and it is this comparison that ultimately drives the change. And just this week we have seen the response to the appalling pollution in Beijing – much of which is attributed to coal –fired generation on the outskirts on city – and the Chinese of course are supporting all technologies. You have to hope that if the Americans don’t act, the Chinese might, if for no other reason than to try to maintain civil order, because if these pollution events continue they run the risk of civil unrest on a big scale.

Now, I understand you recently visited Seville to inspect some solar facilities. What did you see there?

We wanted to see the significant breakthrough in technology, which is molten salt storage. At the Gemasolar plant you see thousands of heliostats and mirrors capturing the sun’s power and the ability to store heat in molten salt technology and use that energy after the sun goes down. We get so tired about hearing that it coud never happen, and solar can never provide 24-hour power, and they we were standing in the middle of it. It is now a matter of the economics of it, not a matter of whether  technology can deliver power after the sun goes down. And having travelled down from Madrid to Seville on the very fast train, and seeing that plant and then going to the Abengoa plant, where they have the largest demonstration site, private or private of different solar technologies anywhere in the world – they are looking at six different technologies, and walking around that I felt like I stepped into the future, it was fantastic. And all I could think was here they are doing it in Spain, why aren’t we doing it in Australia when we got all the advantages in terms of physical space, we have got the right solar irradiation but we have got the mindset that sticks with old fossil fuel technologies?

And why is that, do you think? 

You tell me. I think it’s a refusal to embrace future. It’s vested interests in Australia who have invested heavily in coal and gas, who do not want to see new technologies rolled out because it threatens the business model of the existing power stations. I look at Origin Energy, for example, which for a while pretended it had real interest in renewables but then invested heavily in gas. Now the fossil fuel industry recognises that it is at risk as solar advances. And they have now turned a focused and dedicated campaign to undermine renewables in Australia. But anyone who thinks renewables are going away are mistaken. And we will fight to get the Renewable Energy Target extended to 2030, and lift the level of ambition, first of all in renewable energy, and then in greenhouse gas reduction.

And how will this play out in this year’s election campaign?

The Greens will be campaigning for 100% renewables energy as quickly as possible, and end to expansion of coal exports, and coal seam gas. We will be arguing that you don’t start a new fossil fuel industry at end of fossil fuel age when it comes to coal seam gas, and that you can’t be serious about addressing global warming if you continue to subsidise fossil fuels and continue to support expansion of coal ports in Queensland and coal exports. We will be campaigning heavily on that. No doubt, neither the government nor the Coalition will not want to campaign on climate change.  Because the coalition has no intention of increasing the level of ambition of 5% because they are now stranded with their policy because the community has moved on since the introduction of carbon pricing and the issue for Abbott is how he is going to pay for it if he abandons carbon pricing. And from the government point of view, it has no intention of moving on coal exports – it wants to keep its schizophrenic position on fossil fuels, where it can argue that it introduce the carbon price, but it intends to maintain and expand coal experts. So it doesn’t want much scrutiny on that either. So while we will campaign heavily on climate change, there will be a real push to by government and the coalition to say we have already dealt with that and no going to discuss it further.

Can your position attract more of the mainstream electorate?

We will certainly be trying. What will bring them unstuck, tragically, is that extreme weather events will not go away – they are part of a trend of climate change and  just as Hurricane Sandy disrupted the plans of Obama and Romney in trying to get climate change off the agenda – it came on the agenda in the last week, and despite what Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott are trying to do, the trend is there for extreme weather events and we are going to face the consequences. The reality is there. The people who get it most are those living in rural Australia. You only have to look at consequent of heat waves and bushfires. They understand it is happening. And increasingly they will be looking at Tony Abbott and Warren Truss and thinking that those people don’t actually get rural and regional Australia if they think they can put up a policy platform that doesn’t address global warming. Rural and regional Australia want a plan that recognises the reality of climate change and want a strategy to adapt and prepare for what’s coming as well as rolling out renewables.