[ad_1]
Climate change is one the greatest challenges of our generation. However, a quick look at what the major parties are doing as we move between the budget and the election may not seem so clear.
Take a look at Morrison’s budget.
As scientists have known for decades, the most urgent and easiest way to solve the climate crisis is to switch to renewable energy.
But what about that urgent? It was not a priority in the budget of the government, which did not include any major new funding for renewable energy generation.
In fact, the government found that $700 million less was spent on climate in 2026 than it did today when it added up its total “climate expenditure” in the budget papers.
It’s unclear from which programs the money is coming from. Some savings will come from the government’s Emissions Reduction Fund. However, the budget papers don’t specify this.
It doesn’t matter where it comes from, the budget papers indicate that there’s no plan for reinjecting that money into reducing the emissions within four years.
Although there are not many climate measures available, one could be a ‘trick.
There were no new dollars for electric vehicles (an area where Australia is trailing much of the world) and no new money for transitioning communities reliant on coal jobs (something sorely needed for the government to meet its target of net zero emissions by 2050).
$148.6 million has been set aside by the government for 60 community renewable microgrids. These microgrids will improve reliability of regional electricity supply and reduce dependence on noisy diesel generators.
However, the funding goes beyond the budget period and the papers don’t explain how much, if any, of that is ‘new money’ — that is, money that has not been announced elsewhere. Experts have identifiedThis trick is used throughout the year’s budget.
This budget shows a significant shift in how the government views climate change compared with the last.
The government’s narrative last year explicitly supported fossil fuels as a central focus: it was called the “gas fired recovery”.
The treasurer’s speech this year didn’t mention the word “gas”. According to The Australia Institute’s analysis, the budget contains nearly $4 billion worth of measures. Most of these will eventually be used as subsidies for the gas industry.
The budget papers highlighted a $50.3 million allocation to “accelerate development of property gas infrastructure”.
The Australia Institute analysis also includes investments in “low emissions technologies”, which are allowed to go to gas, as well as investments in the National Water Grid, which includes water infrastructure for a gas hub, and patent concessions, mostly for “low emissions technology” that includes gas.
The gas industry was happy with what it saw, and the industry lobby group noted this.In a press statement:The “federal budget confirms gas centrality to the economy”
Emissions Reductions Minister Angus Taylor said the government’s budget measures would support reliable energy and help Australia meet its target of net zero emissions by 2050.
“Our technology-not taxes-approach will make sure Australia meets and beats our 2030 emissions target, and plays a leading role in bringing down global emissions by investing in the technologies that won’t just help Australia, but will help the world,” he said.
Labor has a plan but its target is weaker in this election.
Labor’s budget reply made climate change more prominent. Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese tried to convince voters about his “Powering Australia” plan in Labor’s response.
However, Mr Albanese did not reveal any additional expenditures on climate change beyond the ones already announced. Labor’s plan doesn’t seem to be ‘new’. It will spend $24 Billion to modernize Australia’s electricity network to support more renewable energy, encourage private investment in renewable, build community battery and solar generation, reduce emissions from the public sector, and increase Australia’s overall electricity supply.
It is possible to model for the opposition. will drive $76 billion of private investment in renewables, lower energy bills and get Australia to the Labor Party’s 2030 target: a 43 per cent cut in emissions below 2005 levels.
However, it is that target that has been the subject of criticism from conservationists and climate scientists.
While it’s significantly better than the Morrison government’s target of 26 per cent, it’s weaker than Labor’s target at the last election, and not what experts say Australia needs to do to help keep heating at below 1.5C — and not even enough for 2C.
According to the Climate Targets Panel, Australia needs to cut emissions by 74 per cent by 2030 to do its fair share of stopping warming at 1.5C and 50 per cent to stop it at 2C.
On the ground, there are serious concerns
There are other parties or groups that have stronger targets.
The Greens’ policy includes a 75 per cent cut to emissions by 2030 and an immediate ban on the construction of new coal, oil and gas infrastructure.
A number of independent candidates are running in seats that were once held by the Coalition. This calls for greater targets.
Zali Steggall, the member for the Sydney seat of Warringah — which she took after dethroning the previous member, Tony Abbott — has supported a 60 per cent target for 2030.
And Allegra Spender, an independent running for the Sydney seat of Wentworth — also once held by another former PM, Malcolm Turnbull — has backed a 46-50 per cent target, which is the same as that supported by the Business Council of Australia.
As for the two major parties, you can’t help thinking they want climate change to be a secondary issue this election.
It’s hard to ignore if you live in NSW’s Northern Rivers, which was hit by severe flooding twice in a month.
Global climate experts such as Mark Howden, head at the ANU Institute for Climate, Energy and Disaster Solutions, stated that climate change played a role in the floods of March 1.
“We can already say that climate change is embedded in this event. These events are driven by ocean temperatures, and we know that they have gone up due to climate change, which has been caused by human influence,” Professor Howden stated.
When dividing up the money, any potential leader of this nation should consider the real-time needs of towns like Lismore.
Many residents of Lismore have grave concerns about the future, including Ellen Kronen, a local business leader.
“We’re a tough bunch here. However, you can only extend that resilience so far before it’s time to say “I’m going down,” she said to the ABC after the first floods.
Now, after this week’s second wave of floods, her outlook underscores the bleak reality – for Lismore, and beyond.
“We’ve reached a low point,” you think.
