Kevin and Barack had their first conversation yesterday. As well as discussing the G.F.C. they also discussed closer cooperation on the climate crisis and agreed both countries should work closely together in preparation for the next United Nations meeting on the post-Kyoto framework in Copenhagen later this year.
There was no mention of them discussing how solutions to the climate crisis are a potentially huge part of the solution to the financial crisis. Obama has already developed policy in this area. Rudd has not. It’s not the only difference between the two leaders but it may prove to be a crucial one.
The climate crisis is going to get a lot worse before it gets better – if it ever will get better. The political momentum for a change in our energy system will continue to grow, and this shift will be the basis of the next industrial revolution. As usual, California is ahead of the curve. And now Obama is starting to position the US economy with the $50billion in funding for green energy announced as part of the economic bailout package. It’s a late and slow start, but it’s heading in the right direction. Combined with State efforts and private sector leadership (like Google’s project to make renewable energy cheaper than coal), it’ll probably ensure that countries like Australia end up buying most of our future energy infrastructure from the US. If not Germany or Japan.
Next week we’re expecting another economic stimulus package to be announced. The last one was basically just a Christmas spending spree, much of which was spent on pokies but some of which no doubt bought some more presents for under the tree. But ’spend till we mend’ without any other public policy purpose is a remarkably foolish manner in which to blow the budget.
So where is the Green jobs plan for Australia? Where is the stimulus package that will drive investment in renewable energy, create a domestic manufacturing base, jobs and cut emissions?
Greenpeace did a report last year looking at creating a transition in the Hunter Valley from coal power to renewable energy. It was the first study of it’s kind in Australia and aimed to provide a case study for a ‘just transition’ to a low carbon economy. The study, conducted by the Centre for Full Employment and Equity and Newcastle University, showed that a transition to renewable energy in the hunter/wyong region of NSW would result in between 4,000 and 10,000 nett new jobs.
Germany now employs over 250,000 people in the renewable energy industry. This didn’t happen by osmosis or good luck. It happened because they created the right policy framework to drive investment – a gross feed-in-tarrif that ensures a higher rate is paid for energy from renewable sources. The Rudd Government is, of course, in the process of undermining the possibility of a good national feed-in-tarrif for Australia by burying the proposal in an interminable COAG process.
Leadership to solve the climate and economic crises would involve creating a policy framework to drive renewable energy and energy efficiency improvements, with a focus on job creation including the building of a long term manufacturing base for renewable energy in Australia. Otherwise, I’m sure Obama would be happy for us to continue dithering so that they can include Australia on the list of future export markets for renewable energy technology.
But surely we’re smarter than that.
6 Comments
John, I’m having trouble understanding the fundamental fallacy of renewable zealots: i.e. that so-called “green jobs” are only those which are involved in renewables. This completely ignores the jobs potential of developing clean-coal technology. Given that Australia has extremely large coal deposits – much of it exported – clean coal investment must be part of any overall plan to decrease carbon emissions.
Generic Person, sorry if I gave the impression that green jobs are only in renewables. They would also be in energy efficiency, and in fact any other area that is making a positive contribution to the health of the environment.
As for clean coal technology, it doesn’t exist yet and is unlikely to ever be commercially viable. And if it was, then it would be far too late to make any material impact on reducing greenhouse emissions within the timeframe required. And even then it would require an investment in new infrastructure comparable in size to rebuilding the entire global oil distribution network. Clean coal is a foolish distraction.
Obama’s chief of staff has a good line about not letting a crisis go to waste. His point being that there are radical options that are only available (or politically achievable) during a crisis.
Thousands of smart people lose their jobs in finance, re-train them and re-deploy them doing something useful. A traditional industry is failing (e.g. Automotive), so use the rescue fund to set them up for the future. E.g. start making plug-in only electric cars, thats the 20 year future, not hybrids, not fuel cells.
Government hand-outs shouldn’t be used to prop-up outdated dying industries and technologies, they should be used to promote new directions which have a societal benefit, not just a short-term economic benefit to incumbent companies. Government supports white-collar university education, this public investment should be spread to include re-training people from dying blue industries, to work in emerging blue/green collar industries.
Fund clean coal research, but any commercialised technology has to pay royalties into the future fund.
Ps. Research labelled “clean coal” is not just about coal, its carbon capture which is going to be necessary to keep using natural gas or to deal with the CO2 from landfill or to sequester large amounts of carbon (unless you plan on growing trees then burying them). The technologies to come out of it are probably essential if we want to reduce emissions by >90%. Completely replacing the electricity and transport with zero emissions still leaves unacceptably high emissions from a 40-50 years time perspective.
When it comes to climate change policy is quite obviously a satellite of China and Japan’s coal consumption.
It’s very ironic hearing our resident rednecks – some pollies, some business, some journos, refer to our insignificant emissions compared to these huge enonomies. They are wrong about that for two serious reasons:
We are a big feedstock of those enduser high emission economies. So we are accessories to the crime.
Second, as Monica Oliphant said last year to the solar conference in Sydney – fully 30% of total global emissions is made up of small fractional contributors on par with australia. Something like 180 plus small to medium size countries. And of all those SME emitters who do you think they look to for an example? A rich capable well connected country with a certain reputation at least up until Howard of fair dealing on international affairs?
That’s right. Australia. If we squib it, that’s about 30% of global emissions who have every excuse to point at us and squib it too. I don’t like my country being responsible for that kind of moral failure and voted accordingly last time.
Growing trees then burying them is probably ten times more cost-effective than filtering, compressing and burying gaseous carbon dioxide from flue gases. Burying not trees but charcoal, since it can improve the fertility of poor soils in tropical regions, is more cost-effective still since it can expand agriculture in semi-arid regions and reduces the incentive to slash-and-burn tropical rainforests.
But the simplest and cheapest way to sequester carbon is not to move it at all. Leaving underground all the coal used to produce electricity on sunny days in sunny places would cost nothing at all, if the money currently spent mining and transporting it were diverted to building mirrors arrays to collect solar heat to drive turbines instead.
John – great article – word is that there WILL be some kind of green jobs program in the 2nd stimulus package this week – perhaps even the climate movement’s “Insulate Australia” proposal from last year.