Calls for urgent action on decarbonisation are often linked with calls for dramatic changes to the political and economic status quo (1, 2).
This poses the question, “is broadening the scope of climate policies to include major systemic change helpful or is it counterproductive”? To answer this one needs to first consider what will ultimately control the rate at which decarbonisation occurs.
If the most important part of the decarbonisation process is finding technical solutions to a suite of scientific challenges, then political agendas such as those outlined in the Green New Deal would be noise in the background of the main climate battleground. Alas that is almost certainly not the case with decarbonisation being as much a political process as a technical one. The rate of decarbonisation will ebb and flow depending on what policies are in place and the extent to which these policies are challenged by political opponents. Linking the Green New Deal and calls for the end to capitalism to climate policy are very much front and centre topics.
In an earlier blog (3), I expressed the opinion that “that rapid and well managed decarbonisation won’t happen…. until (centre right political groups) come to the conclusion that there are more votes in reducing CO2 than the status quo”. At the risk of doubling down, I believe the degree of scepticism among mainstream conservatives is a more important variable than the degree of ambition among climate zealots (the strength of the opposition is more important than the vigour of the proponents). This position is an extension of the logic that would have an average Australian voter forego the Greens in favour of the ALP on the basis that Green policies, whilst appealing, won’t be enacted. My thesis goes further by suggesting that explicitly linking mainstream decarbonisation policies with calls, for example, to end capitalism will both drive a veto sized majority of voters to conservative parties and make opposition to decarbonisation a conservative litmus test. Genuine climate advocates should not want either of these outcomes.
I may, of course, be wrong. Perhaps if the climate policy christmas tree is loaded up with proposals to fundamentally change the established social and economic order it will become more appealing to the voting mainstream and an Australian Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will be swept to power with a powerful mandate to cure not just carbon pollution but all manner of other national flaws.
Alternatively, perhaps capitalism has to be smashed (or given a swift kick in the rear) to prevent vested interests derailing the decarbonisation process. Even if this is the case, getting elected would be a more practical first step in countering this threat.
Australia is not alone in navigating the realpolitik of decarbonisation and we could do well to monitor what happens elsewhere. I think this will show that the best long term outcomes come where climate advocates choose to (and are able to) work productively with centre right parties. Decarbonisation will inevitably involve unpopular outcomes and tough decisions. If climate advocates want steady, consistent progress they should thank their local AOC for the ongoing support whilst engaging across the political spectrum to create a broad understanding and acceptance for an orderly, measured and transparent decarbonisation process.
In more concrete terms for Australia, we are likely to soon see an ALP government that will need support from Senate cross benches for their modest pragmatic policies. Maybe the coalition sans Tony Abbott has a term or two in opposition to see opportunity in engaging in decarbonisation – guiding this process should be a key goal of climate advocates.
I am interested in your thoughts on the NZ Zero Carbon Bill announced this week.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/112546824/landmark-climate-change-bill-goes-to-parliament?rm=a
Additionally is Australia well placed for Carbon offsetting? There must be huge swaths of marginal land that could be converted into forestry if the price is right.
I suspect at a high level it is probably not too different from policies in place in other developed countries with centre left governments. They will have constituents that they need to satisfy as well as Paris obligations which will be revisited in 2023. To head off the more zealous organisations they have called for more aggressive action on the “easier” parts of the CO2 budget and less aggressive action on methane which is both harder and more impactful on the NZ economy. Doing the easy stuff – both technically and politically – first wont be a unique approach.
The Bill calls for a 5 year emissions overview and budget – this syncs with the requirements of the Paris Agreement so a logical process. Irrespective of what the government of today says all countries will monitor progress vs others – particularly the big emitters – but this should evolve into a sector by sector analysis with target comparator countries/regions identified. Power generation, EV rollout, heating and land uses are obvious target areas.
Opponents will say that the Bill will cripple the economy – it will obviously cost lots of money and governments of all persuasions will be forced to become less aggressive if the cost (politically) becomes too onerous
Trying to get consensus is a nice idea – easier in NZ in the absence of state/provincial governments. The centre right will find there are more votes in pragmatic climate response than denial so not too surprising they want to look like they are on board. Getting consensus on specific areas would be a good outcome and avoid more radical/progressive groups seeking to both “own” the climate response space and grafting other topics onto the task of decarbonisation
The concept of an independent Climate Commission sounds like a good idea but I wonder if it doesn’t become politicised – they should have an odd number of commissioners with staggered terms.
Decarbonising the power sector – currently 82% renewable – is , in relative terms, a lot easier than in other countries. Seems like the current small amount of coal (~4%) will be out by 2025 leaving mostly gas. NZ solar is low by world standards (0,25%) – the UK has over 10% more solar generation from the same land area (and a similar or worse climate??). This should cover the loss of coal. NZ will need to make investments in generation – South to North Island and Batteries – but it should be net zero generation. Canada, Scotland, Brazil, Norway could be comparator countries although NZ has a tougher task not being connected to any neighbours. Balancing this NZ has one very large power consumer which will inevitably be a big part of the equation.
Gas heating will need to decline -the higher the current gas price the easier this will be. Electrification will be part of the solution but tends to drive up peak demand which is not so good for wind and solar. Electrification of domestic and small scale heating will require storage so perhaps NZ should develop a power storage metric with suitable comparators.
Electric vehicles are somewhat similar but potentially less impactful on peak demand – there is some potential to actually help peak demand with cars acting as a power source in the early evening. As mentioned in one of my earlier blogs government investment (direct or otherwise) in fast charging will be needed and a recognition that some communities will be more impact by range constraints than others.
You mention offsets in your question – this is a well made point. For NZ to get to nett zero CO2 there will need to be some offsets . For the goal to be credible the offsets will need to be robust and auditable. NZ governments should probably get on top of this early to make sure credits are real and there is a readily understandable list of “sanctioned” offset programs. A greater reliance on well documented local and possibly Australian programs with appropriate governance seems like a preferred option.
In summary the Bill probably translates to “we will decarbonise the same things as everyone else at a rate that balances what other countries are doing, what technology allows and what a majority of the voters are willing to support. With regard to methane we recognise that we need to do something but our economy is uniquely based on biological methane so we will do what we can but we wont be shooting ourselves in the foot”
What are your thoughts?
[…] https://journeytozerocarbon.com/2019/04/30/green-new-deal-and-decarbonisation/ […]