Will Bishop, Robb boost Australia’s climate reputation, or make it worse?

LIMA: It’s starting to look as if Australia’s reputation on climate issues lies in tatters upon the dusty floor of a suburban Lima eatery, somewhere on the outskirts of this great sprawling city, being gnawed at by a Peruvian street dog.

If that seems a little harsh, consider the following developments of the last few days:

For the first time, the goal of phasing out fossil fuels by 2050 appears in the draft text currently being debated at COP20 in Lima. Let that settle in you mind for a little bit: many of the world’s governments are seriously considering replacing the very thing that has enabled industrial civilization thus far. If nothing else, considering the power and might of the fossil fuel lobby, this is an extraordinary development. (Whether it sticks is another matter.)

Already, most OECD countries, including Stephen Harper’s Canada, with its tar sands and plans for mighty pipelines, chipped in to the Green Climate Fund. Meanwhile, Australia steadfastly snubs its nose at the very idea of helping poorer countries leapfrog over oil and coal, and industrialize cleanly.

The GCF—the aim of which is to finance mitigation and adaptation in less-developed countries—has reached almost US$10 billion. Non-governmental organizations at the COP are optimistic that more contributions will be forthcoming before the week is out.

Indeed, the text being negotiated for a new global agreement in Paris next year now sees adaptation get its very own paragraph, with specific targets for financial aid, and clear references to human rights and gender. Disappointingly, the language is still weak, but this, too, is still an extraordinary, not to mention sobering development. It recognizes that the climate is changing even as the delegates speak and ministers fly in.

Last week, the World Meteorological Organization warned that 2014 was shaping up to be the warmest year on record, with fourteen of the hottest fifteen years on record appearing this century. Hagupit, the storm that has now begun to kill and maim in the Philippines, started as the seventh Category 5 tropical storm of 2014—the most since 2005. In a sign of things to come, the Filipinos were better prepared this time and the largest single peacetime evacuation—nearly a million people—was carried out to move as many to safety as was practicable.

At a seminar organized at COP20 by the Inter-American Development Bank, renowned biologist and former environmental advisor to the World Bank, Thomas Lovejoy said, ‘It’s too late not to worry about adaptation.’ There is no longer a choice between mitigation and adaptation, Lovejoy said, the two are inseparable.

The very fact that the IDB and World Bank are here in Lima at all, and calling for stronger action, should give Foreign Minister Julie Bishop and Trade Minister Andrew Robb—both in attendance this week—pause for thought.

Indeed, on Monday, the President of the World Bank, Dr Jim Yong Kim, called on governments to do two key things: introduce a price on carbon and end fossil fuel subsidies.

That is, the very policies the Abbott Government has fought tooth and nail to repeal and avoid are being advocated by the chief of the planet’s leading proponent of free-market reform. While Mr Abbott argues that ‘coal is good’ and to phase it out would be to condemn millions to shiver in the cold, the IDB and World Bank regard climate change as a strategic challenge and renewables as essential to poverty alleviation. These and other multilateral development banks now routinely screen prospective loans for carbon and climate risk.

It remains to be seen what role Australia will take at these negotiations. There are some signs that it will sit on the sidelines as much as possible, and others that it will continue to do what it can to hamper efforts to arrive at something ambitious for Paris.

Speaking from Lima, Greens Leader, Senator Christine Milne said it was clear that the Foreign Minister knows the extent to which Australia is isolated in its views.

‘Therefore, the Prime Minister wants to make sure his number-one loyalist—and the man responsible for overturning Malcolm Turnbull’s leadership because of his stance on climate change—comes to Lima to make sure no compromise is offered by Australia.’

‘My only hope is that Andrew Robb’s eyes are opened by the number of high-level of business delegations here at the COP20 and the extent to which business is now fully engaged with the transition to clean economies and the technology to support adaptation,’ Senator Milne said.

Despite protestations from the Government that Robb is not here simply to accompany Bishop, it’s understood that the two will attend almost every meeting together. It’s hard not to see this as further evidence that Robb is here to ‘chaperone’ Bishop.bishopAustralia

Senator Milne remarked that it was ironic that the Trade Minister was taking part in climate talks given the Prime Minister’s insistence that climate change had no place in economic dialogues, such as the G20.

‘The fact that Abbott has insisted that Andrew Robb come suggests he knows the intense pressure the Foreign Minister is under with climate change raised at every one of the meetings she has attended in recent months.’

Of course, what else could the Government do? To not send ministers to Lima would risk their absence becoming the headlines.

In an annual assessment of countries climate performance by NGOs Germanwatch and Climate Action Network Europe, Australia has slipped to last place in the developed world since last year. That is, behind Canada and only a smidgeon ahead of Saudi Arabia.

And Bloomberg New Energy Finance didn’t mince words in their pre-COP20 briefing paper:

‘Australia has lost a lot of credibility around the negotiating table since Prime Minister Tony Abbott repealed the country’s carbon price earlier this year. Abbott has snubbed the UN talks in the past, sending only low-level delegates to COP19.’

It seems Bishop and Robb are here to take some of the sting out of that charge, but they can only do so much and may well end up worsening Australia’s diplomatic situation simply by opening their mouths.

It is a testament to his skills as a politician that Tony Abbott and his lieutenants have been able to convince much of the Australian electorate that the world had given up on progressive climate policies. But reality has a way of defeating even the most skilful politician.

Comments

19 responses to “Will Bishop, Robb boost Australia’s climate reputation, or make it worse?”

  1. Alistair Spong Avatar
    Alistair Spong

    Bullshit , Abbott was never a skilful politician … Just an actor in a public relations campaign orchestrated by the fossil and mining industries…. Without a script he is always lost – that’s when a skilful politician shines

  2. Keith Avatar
    Keith

    This is only the beginning of Tony Abbott’s “own goal” on climate. It was a huge call for Abbott and a bunch of climate deniers to bet that all of the world’s scientists are wrong.

    Well they weren’t wrong and the world is understanding that urgent action is needed.

    Abbott has many issues to face here, not the least of which is the need to make clear to the rest of the world that Australia will behave as an international citizen, while at the same time trying to keep up the charade at home that the carbon tax was a bad thing. The thing that amazes me most is that to this day he still keeps saying that “axing the tax” was one of his most significant achievements. He must stop saying that soon.

    … and yes, just about everyone (except for the cabinet and a bunch of elderly deniers) want wind and solar and do not want coal. Unless he declares a dictatorship, this augurs very badly for the next election.

    1. Macabre Avatar
      Macabre

      The ironic thing is that this is a key promise that the COALition have actually kept! If they U-turn they look bad. If they keep going they look bad. I find it difficult to feel sorry for them,

  3. DogzOwn Avatar
    DogzOwn

    Poor old Murdoch press, recommending Truly Julie to replace Phoney Tony, claiming she was doing such a good job. Looks like she only opens her mouth to change feet!

  4. coomadoug Avatar
    coomadoug

    If either of our reps say anything it will make us look bad. Being there and listening only will make us look bad. Bad apples look bad in a box of good fruit. If the plan is to team up with some other bad apples and spoil the party, that is a dreadful thought. If the plan is to enlighten the world to the thought that “climate science is crap”, that will be bad. So we are left with the optimum plan of sitting there quietly. That also will be bad and pro science people can invent thoughts for us and write about it based on behaviours.

  5. Alan Baird Avatar
    Alan Baird

    The best illustration of the “Australian Problem” as articulated by the Federal Government came from a letter to the Herald years ago. Citing the “we’ll clear up our emissions when everybody else does” mantra trotted out by the denialists, the correspondent compared this with being prepared to begin driving safely and following the road rules when everybody else does. Until then you won’t know which side of the road his car will be travelling. Presumably the Right so watch out.

    1. michael Avatar
      michael

      bit of difference between driving on the correct side of the road and offering to pay for everyone else’s petrol

      1. Alan Baird Avatar
        Alan Baird

        How is offering to pay for everybody’s petrol connected apart from what’s inside your head? We export coal and have made a motza. THAT’S not paying, it’s being paid. We import Chinese goods produced with billions of tons of fossil fuels and our dollars pay for this but not the pollution. We then criticise China FOR the pollution WHILE BUYING GOODS made with the same pollution. (Tone has even signed up for a free trade agreement!) We have had a free kick on Kyoto climate negotiations under Howard. No paying there. The carbon tax SHOULD have acted as a filter to distinguish between high and low polluting goods and services by influencing the price point. Labor deliberately blunted this effect under Rudd Ferguson AND STILL there was a non-stop moaning. Paying for everybody’s petrol? Far from it. Free-loading on everybody else more like. Get real. But read your Tele-Hun-Oz by all means. They’ll tell you what you WANT to hear.

        1. michael Avatar
          michael

          So, we own the carbon pollution when we sell coal internationally, but your also saying we own the pollution when we buy goods from overseas (surely they receive payment for it so own those inputs). Seems like a bite at both ends to suit a narrative of evil Australia. Should we and the first world have refused to buy from environmentally detrimental manufacturing and transferred no wealth to the emerging markets? Leaving 100’s of millions I poverty? Forced them to use our technology at hugely inflated cost (ie solar and wind 20years ago) and only then bought off them in a lovely circular blackmail where we end up owning the product and the means of manufacturing it?

          1. nakedChimp Avatar
            nakedChimp

            So, we own the carbon pollution when we sell coal internationally, but
            your also saying we own the pollution when we buy goods from overseas
            (surely they receive payment for it so own those inputs).

            He said Autralians don’t pay for the pollution that has been caused in the production of the products that had been made with Australian coal at all, learn to read.

            And yeah, Chinese don’t pay either except for them being closer to the power plants burning the FFs and having to inhale/digest the pollution in the air/food more than we do..
            Same is true for anyone buying Chinese products and not being a Chinese inhaling/digesting the pollutants. Yadda, Yadda.

            I got a question for you michael.. if you drive/walk along a road, are in no hurry and you see a piece of pipe laying in the middle of it.. what do you do?

          2. michael Avatar
            michael

            We import Chinese goods produced with billions of tons of fossil fuels and our dollars pay for this but not the pollution. We then criticise China FOR the pollution WHILE BUYING GOODS made with the same pollution.”

            So, should we offer to pay more? Obviously that doesn’t make any sense.

            So, why doesn’t China adhere to all the environmental and IR policies of Australia and in the process remove their competitive advantage in cost and we can got back producing everything ourselves to internalise the full costs?

            Or, if as you suggest, the full costs are included by China moving to a fully transparent carbon pricing mechanism/market, we will be paying for this pollution at the market rate so what’s the problem?

            You are quiet clearly now straying into particulate pollution problems which is an entirely different topic, but hey, if you need to do that to prop up the criticism, so be it.

            They also have to live near the toxic industrial waste created through the manufacture of solar panels and wind turbine inputs, which once again is not a climate change issue, so similar to your particulates, it is a separate issue.

            Not enough context in your question Chimp (how big is it? what’s it made of? is it potentially covered in unknown substances? etc), but if you expand i’ll happily answer your hypothetical. Do love a good hypothetical.

            If i’m unable to establish it would be safe for me to move it, I would leave it in place and get someone qualified to undertake the task. If it is small enough to step over, I would alert the appropriate people and step over it and continue on. If if was a traffic hazard on the road and unlikely to be seen by others (yet somehow big enough to cause damage), I would stop and alert oncoming cars until it could be removed safely. If it was across a bush path and an alternate was available with no need to move the pipe, I’d go around and not worry about it.

            pretty interested to see where you’re going with this…

            Here’s another hypothetical; If it was a given that something was going to be consumed (100% probability), however this something had two types which could be substituted, one which had a negative impact of 100 and one which had a negative impact of 120 (nominal basis, holistic assessment). Which would you use?

          3. Alan Baird Avatar
            Alan Baird

            Fact is, it’s impossible for Oz pollies to point the finger at China without being hypocrites. We’re intimately implicated and will be even more so locked in via free trade. We all love the money. We are EASILY as culpable as China and we’ve had the advantage of years of development. Why should Oz pay more for Chinese goods? Who suggested we should? The point is, by buying Chinese goods and then criticising the pollution caused in their production neatly subtracts us from the chain of inculpation! Nice work if you can get away with it but some have it figured out. Some uncharitable people such as myself would call this hypocrisy. But only on a grand scale. Now what really tightens Oz coal producers’ sphincters is the thought that China will improve efficiency and reduce coal dependency. And they almost certainly will. Note: Coal producers are no more concerned for the poor of the world than Tony Abbott is. Their much self-trumpeted concern for jobs is another canard. Perhaps for the Board but the rest can take their chances. Cheap coal a moral idea? Ha! Such tender concerns…

          4. michael Avatar
            michael

            Is it not hypocrisy to decry the coal credentials of Australia while talking up the Chinese coal credentials (ie their climate intentions)? ie. what large swathes of media have done for the last two weeks and what many an article has done on these pages

            Of course they will decrease their coal dependency… eventually. But in the meantime, why not supply them with high quality coal that has been produced from a safe workforce? wasn’t there 20+ death incident in a Chinese coal mine in the last few weeks? I would think those concerned for the quality of life on this planet for humans would prefer the safe extraction of coal as opposed to the more risky extraction in China. Perhaps all those so concerned with say Whitehaven, could go protest against Chinese coal mines and chain themselves to a digger over there…. yeah, see how that goes for them.

            Go sit outside the Chinese embassy and protest their coal industry which does so much more environmental/human damage than hundreds of Maule’s Creeks…

            I’m in no way saying one source of carbon being released to the atmosphere is any different to another, the self flagellation that some seem to think we as developed nations should engage in is what I find confounding

          5. Alan Baird Avatar
            Alan Baird

            Still haven’t addressed the point. CRITICISING the Chinese is the point while aiding and abetting the pollution. But you can’t do that. Both countries are involved. Done and dusted. And once again you’ve put NON-EXISTENT words into my mouth by claiming I’m “talking up” Chinese coal credentials (what ever that’s supposed to mean). Weird! But I’ve got to come clean. I confess I lurve Chinese coal and hate Oz coal. What are you on by the way? And hell will cook before I’ll man the barricades at Whitehaven. All your efforts above were sheer obfuscation. Eye-wash, twaddle, sophistry. Address the issue.

          6. michael Avatar
            michael

            not necessarily YOU in particular, how about the tone of this article and most comments on it https://reneweconomy.wpengine.com/2014/us-china-climate-deal-puts-heat-on-australia-68585

            very much a china good, australia bad sort of article. From Milne (not necessarily saying you agree with the Greens), “Tony Abbott is engaging in intergenerational theft while the rest of the world moves to protect future generations and the planet.” quite humorous when put against a back drop of the actual current contributions to this intergenerational theft she mentions, ie Australia’s emissions under Abbott vs Chinese emission under Xi or USA emissions under Obama

            I have no problem with what China are doing (addressing the criticising chinese point) what i’m doing is highlighting the hypocrisy of people lauding the chinese and attacking australia (not necessarily you, again)

        2. Macabre Avatar
          Macabre

          @Alan – Don’t worry about Michael

          He is not hear to listen or to be convinced, merely to disrupt. He is either a Shill or a Dill.

          The real people we have to convince are those who accept the science but don’t act on that knowledge, and those that have never considered the issue at all.

          International pressure like this will help most if it translates to yet more poll sliding for the COALition.

          The constant self serving by the Murdoch press will result in them losing a generation of readers. The fossil fuel lobby, through their perversion of the political process. will make the COALition unlectable for the forseeable future – or at least only electable if it completely purges itself of its deniers.

          1. michael Avatar
            michael

            haha, I’m fully accepting of the science, but you tell yourself what you need to. The economic mechanism to take into consideration and the ultimate actions that best deal with the potential outcomes and pathways is the disputable part.

          2. Alan Baird Avatar
            Alan Baird

            My attitude is to not cop it sweet as Labor does from the Murdochracy. And if Michael is fully accepting of the science, he’s seems as convinced as the Hon A. Abbott. This acceptance is translated into removing anything that researches the science, transmits it or acts upon it. The milquetoast Labor left (which is really just another right wing organisation) is unfortunately another impediment to effective action on climate, acting as a lure for non-conservative votes and then quite deliberately doing as little as possible. A political Q ship in effect. But very enthusiastic in Opposition.

  6. disqus_3PLIicDhUu Avatar
    disqus_3PLIicDhUu

    All Julie Bishop cares about is power, clothes, handbags and shoes.
    She’s not there to help our nation go forward, she’s just a corporate whore, as is the rest of the LNP, for mining and O&G concerns, just as she was for James Hardie and Asbestos.
    We have antisocials trying to run social policies, doomed to failure.

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