Tony Abbott’s war on clean energy – and business people who speak out

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Former NAB chief laments ‘reckless’ policies of Abbott govt, says business leaders afraid to speak out for fear of retribution.

share
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The most recent head of the National Australia Bank, one of the country’s most powerful financial institutions, has made extraordinary revelations about the back-lash from government to business that dared speak out in support of sensible climate change and renewable energy policies.

In an opinion piece for Fairfax Media, and later in interviews with Fairfax and ABC Radio, the now retired Cameron Clyne lamented the economically reckless policies of the current government and the “will-ful ignorance and blindness of political leaders and some business people in Australia.”

clyne

And he also spoke of retribution to those who did speak out.

“You put your head out there and it’s going to get smashed off,” he told Fairfax Media. Later, he told ABC National; National program that he had suffered months of “emails and abuse” after supported a carbon price in 2011, and the political environment had worsened under the Abbott government.

Clyne’s comments confirm what has been obvious to most, but also reveals the extraordinary behind-the-scenes pressure imposed by a government installed to essentially to frustrate climate change action and to block the development of renewable energy.

The Abbott government has scrapped the carbon price and slashed the renewable energy target. Its policies have resulted in a surge in energy industry emissions and an investment drought in renewable energy.

It has also dismantled the Climate Commission, and cut funding for climate change research. It has tried, and failed, to scrap the Climate Change Authority, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency.

Behind the scenes, government bureaucrats are told that the words clean energy, clean-tech and climate change are not to be used, and there are myriad reports of the intense pressure that government ministers have put incredible pressure on business people who speak in favour of a carbon price or renewable energy, or who are seen to criticize government policy.

In recent weeks, the Abbott government has gone out of its way to try to scare off international investment in renewable energy, saying it does not like or want wind turbines, and responded to the Labor government’s announced target of 50 per cent renewables by 2030 by saying that 23.5 per cent renewable energy was more than enough. It has instructed the CEFC to stop investing in wind energy and in financing arrangements that would make rooftop solar more easily attainable for business, renters, communities and low income families.

Clyne finds this extraordinary, given the “staggering speed” of the move by the world towards renewables. He said it was economically reckless not to diversify the country’s energy mix, and rely on exports that may no longer be wanted.

“The quiet energy revolution has been gathering pace, with the average cost of solar and wind power (and battery technologies) plummeting as technologies develop and deploy,” Clyne wrote in his Fairfax piece.

“I mention “average” costs, because the marginal costs of solar and wind are, of course, zero, and I don’t think any of us have grasped quite how revolutionary that will prove to be for energy markets in the longer run.”

The Abbott government has relied heavily on advice from the likes of Maurice Newman and Dick Warburton and others, conservative business leaders who say they do not accept the science of climate change and reject renewable energy.

The Abbott government has repeatedly coal industry marketing points, such as that “coal is good for humanity” and the key to relieving energy poverty, despite this being rejected by the likes of World Bank and Oxfam, and the focus of the Indian and Chinese governments on renewables rather than imported coal.

“Turning away from the problem will not make the problem go away. It seems some in Australia are willfully blind to these problems and the problems this poses for our nation and its economic and social fabric,” Clyne wrote.

In an interview with Radio National, Clyne gave an indication of how business leaders in Australia are shouted down and intimidated when speaking out on climate change and renewable energy.

“They do fear, particularly from this government, a backlash,’ Clyne said.

Even in 2011, when Clyne openly supported a market based scheme, – Tony Abbott’s dreaded “great big tax”, Clyne said he had suffered months of backlash and emails and abuse.

Nothing he had said was particularly radical. But business people don’t think it is worth it. “The political environment has got more charged since then,” Clyne said.

He said Australia is missing extraordinary investment opportunities in renewables, and investors and business people overseas “scratching their heads about what is going on in Australia.”

“The world is moving, and moving quite rapidly towards renewables.”

 

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

15 Comments
  1. juxx0r 4 years ago

    The only reason a bank wants to support a market based scheme is so that they can manipulate that market for their own purposes.

    • Barri Mundee 4 years ago

      Your cynicism may be justified though Clyne is now retired and still supporting a price on carbon. He is not the only business leader who has belatedly spoken up about the pressure and threats from the Abbott regime, which effectively a front for the vested interests who are desperately trying to head off a threat to their dying business model.

      • juxx0r 4 years ago

        I have no problem with a price on carbon, or a price on NOx, SOx, Hg, As, Cd, organochlorides etc.
        What i have issue with is collecting a price on pollution then allowing third party financial institutions to cream some off the top before the money gets used productively.

        • Barri Mundee 4 years ago

          No argument from me on potential for ETS to be gamed.
          I favour an Obama type of response, essentially to compel a reduction of emissions by regulation. The devil is in the detail of course,but as I understand it the Obama plan offers carrots as well as the stick but essentially it will force emitters to comply.

          • juxx0r 4 years ago

            You could target a carrot/stick to achieve any desired outcome, or you could not, depending on what you desire.

            Seems to me we need to sort out what we desire first otherwise we will end up with a costly and ineffective direct action outcome.

            And if we truly desire clean air, better health, lower cost power, then i dont thing that an ETS is the optimal means of achieving that.

          • Barri Mundee 4 years ago

            My I ask what action to reduce emissions you do favour?

          • juxx0r 4 years ago

            The most effective way to reduce emissions is to build emission free generation. The previous carbon tax showed that it was at least partially effective in reducing emissions too. So combine those, tax pollution, use the proceeds exclusively to build new power generation. You’ll reduce the cost of finance via doing that as it will help derisk and reduce the amount of third party finance and of course there is learning by doing.

          • Alastair Leith 4 years ago

            most effective after Energy Efficiency investments and Land Sector GHG emissions reduction that is.

      • Alastair Leith 4 years ago

        I agree with your concern that there’s a danger of carbon markets being gamed. I think it’s going a bit far to suggest that what Clyne has reported is spoken purely from self interest. Banks may also want to invest in RE through lending, given that it stands to become one of the biggest industries in the world. Anything that can help them out of FF investment pathways would also be good from everyones POV except the FF shareholders.

  2. john 4 years ago

    Mr Clyne has outlined the fact that what has happened is an ideological viewpoint that is not rational.
    The business case is secondary to this blind political belief.
    When a country makes decisions that are fundamental on ideological viewpoints not rational and deliver outcomes that are not beneficial to that society there will be an eventual day of recognition for this folly.
    The poor situation in Australia is not exactly to be applauded but looked at more as one would a poorly educated child who needs guidance..

    • ChrisClarkGold 4 years ago

      Is it a political belief though? I honestly think that on top of the Au$500,000 paid as PM, after he leaves office rumours of serious wealth and a lack of transparency about it’s arrival will start to emerge.

  3. Pedro 4 years ago

    It would be very interesting to read the sorts of email abuse Cameron Clyne received. If he was to leak those emails to the media I am guessing many others would come forward and we would see the extent the Abbott government is willing obscure debate.

    • MaxG 4 years ago

      Not obscure; there is no debate; everything is rigged to their advantage. MY way or the highway.

  4. Chris Fraser 4 years ago

    Well said Mr Clyne. A ‘liberal’ government would be well advised not to marginalise the business growth and diversifying industry

  5. MaxG 4 years ago

    Orwell is very alive indeed. It is frightening.

Comments are closed.

Get up to 3 quotes from pre-vetted solar (and battery) installers.