Last week thousands of Australian school children took time out from their studies to protest against a lack of action on climate change.  Publically, Liberal politicians posed threats of truancy and suggested they would be better off staying at school and leaving the complexities of climate policy to the adults.  In private they were probably thinking about the Vietnam demonstrations of the mid 60’s that eventually became an unstoppable wave of anti-war sentiment that swept all before it – including the McMahon government.

Those on the other side of the political spectrum would have been cheered by enthusiasm of the young protesters and congratulating themselves on being on the right side of history.  Labor members likely to be soon responsible for implementing the ALP plan for 50% renewable generation by 2030 might have had a moment of quiet reflection thinking about issues like the potential for higher prices, grid reliability and subsidies for low income groups – all of which will be far easier to deal with in opposition than in government.

Some may speculate that the young protesters won’t have taken the time to review the latest UNIPCC reports or consider the compromises that could well be needed to decarbonise a modern society.  While no doubt true, such churlishness would be missing the point. Industrialised societies around the world are reaching the point where an overwhelming support for and belief in renewables demands that politicians do whatever is needed to ensure wind and solar produce a sizable portion of generation mix. An increasing number of people don’t want to listen to arguments about baseload coal or grid stability or read any more reports – they want action.  

Moving to a generation mix heavy with renewables may prove to be a double sided poison chalice – the Liberal party will be excoriated for not doing enough and Labor will cop criticism for whatever real or perceived inconveniences result from this roll out.

In the wake of an expected electoral defeat, how will the Liberal party respond to the charge that they have been punished for a perceived reluctance to embrace climate change and support more renewables?  They will, of course, have plenty of other issues on which to blame their defeat so they may be tempted to ignore climate policy and wait to see how an increased reliance on renewables works out for a Labor government. They may, however, use an election defeat as a reset – perhaps develop a position that accepts decarbonisation as a process (rather than climate as a cause), promote actions and safeguards for this process and start to articulate why the public should actually trust them and not their overly zealous opponents to manage such a major transition in critical public infrastructure.  

When it comes to climate policy, will they follow their own advice to the schoolkids – get back into the classroom and come up with something that gives them a pass mark from the electorate or will they be satisfied to resubmit their current climate position?