A recent post (1) highlighted the risk facing the Liberal National government from Australia’s stagnant Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions.  The thesis in this post was that there is a growing demand for pro climate action in key parts of the Liberal heartland and that if these concerns are not addressed votes will be lost to independants and the greens.  Perhaps this analysis is too narrow – two other groups are adding complexity to the Liberal’s climate problem. One is the faction within the party that rejects the legitimacy of climate concerns and instinctively rebels against anything it considers climate friendly – I am giving Morrison the benefit of the doubt in assuming he is not totally in sync with this group.  The second group are Pacific Island leaders who remain critical of what they see as Australia’s poor climate performance. These are the same leaders that Australia and China are courting in a game of geopolitical spin the bottle.

Clearly Prime Minister Morrison recognises the difficulty balancing these views and used his recent speech to the General Assembly of the United Nations (2) to try to reframe the debate and keep all three groups happy.  A synopsis of the speech is provided below

• The speech started with a statement reaffirming Australia’s commitment to the UN and an “international rules-based order” which “is essential for global stability, security and prosperity”.  This was, however, followed by a reminder that the UN needed to “respect for the sovereignty and independence of all states”.  
• Next step was to highlight the Pacific Island nations for whom Australia is the “single largest development partner” and with whom we are a “Pacific family”.  The most important aspect of our work with the UN “to build a more sustainable and resilient Pacific” was “protecting our oceans …one of the world’s more pressing environmental challenges”.  
• Pacific Ocean sustainability means  “Australia is committed to leading urgent action to combat plastic pollution choking our oceans; tackle over-exploitation of our fisheries, prevent ocean habitat destruction and of course take action on climate change”
• After highlighting that in “30 years’ time the weight of plastics in our oceans will exceed the weight of the fish in those oceans”, the PM covered recycling, illegal fishing, whaling and research to help the Great Barrier Reef
• After getting to climate and decarbonisation it was stated that  “Australia is doing our bit on climate change and we reject any suggestion to the contrary”  with subsequent points on meeting Kyoto targets, lower electricity sector emissions and per capita emissions trending down.
• The final section of the speech referred to the Great Thunburg speech (without referring to her by name), suggesting that “we should let our children be children, let our kids be kids, let our teenagers be teenagers”

Will the 10 minute speech to the UN general assembly mollify the three groups identified above?  His right wing colleagues are culturally unmollifiable but will like the pushback on UN global ambition. They may also appreciate the downplaying of decarbonisation by including it with other important but more “traditional” environmental issues.  The Pacific Island leaders are at their most influential in New York and may be satisfied this was recognised and maybe also with the non climate initiatives that Morrison offered. Outside the spotlight they know that whatever weakness they see in Australia’s climate performance, China is a much bigger part of the problem and will be totally oblivious to their concerns.  

In my view where the speech falls way short is that is fails to understand that discussing emissions reductions based on Kyoto targets is bureaucrat jargon that no one is interested in.  Australia’s gross emissions are now the key merric and these are going up. Comments like “in 2012, it was estimated (that) Australia would release some 693 million tonnes of emissions in 2020. As of 2018, this estimate has fallen to 540 million tonnes” simply won’t work. Conflating plastic pollution with decarbonisation reeks of political cynicism – the only people who would see progress on the former as a trade off against the latter don’t really care about either.

Morrison is wedged.  He can’t talk too loudly about emissions from the power sector dropping or record rooftop solar (3) because the Abbott team see this as a retrograde outcome and still harbour ambitions for a new coal plant somewhere.  He can’t blame population growth for the fact that total greenhouse emissions are stuck, (even though Australia’s population is growing at 800% of the OECD average) without having populist forces both within and outside the party call for a halt on growth creating immigration.  Coal exports are so valuable to the country that Australia should be trying to adopt a “last man standing” policy but only works if there are credible emissions reductions elsewhere. Australia’s livestock and agricultural sectors are part of his base and are untouchable until without a shift in rural support for decarbonisation.   As Asia shifts to lower carbon intensive fuels, we want gas to be the new coal but methane leakage calculations from increased gas exports are hurting GHG figures. The only emission reduction options left are accelerating domestic use of renewables and increased EV penetration. The first is a political death trap and EVs is not an obvious winner for a large, sparsely populated country with a non standard cars and a coal heavy power sector. 

The UN speech will have done little to make the voters of Warringah and Kooyong more comfortable with the Liberal party

1.  https://journeytozerocarbon.com/2019/09/18/responding-to-stagnant-ghg-emissions/

1. https://www.pm.gov.au/media/national-statement-united-nations-general-assembly

1. http://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-is-australia-the-world-leader-in-household-solar-power-56670