Labor was in a climate crouch. It now has the chance to stand up to News Corp and put the national interest first

The Guardian

a day ago

In 2021, the Labor party was in a bit of a climate crouch. It needed policies that could be presented at the 2022 election as credible steps towards addressing the century's greatest social and economic challenge after nine years of the Coalition doing next-to-nothing, or less.
It also felt it needed to not leave itself exposed to another round of damaging climate scare campaigns from its opponents in the Morrison government, industry lobby groups and the media, particularly at News Corp. It had experienced too many of those, from claims that a lamb roast would cost more than $100 and Whyalla would be wiped from the map, to baseless attacks in 2019 that its policies would cost an economy wrecking $60bn and, ludicrously, stop people enjoying weekends.
Labor's response was to make like a three-banded armadillo and, should danger arise, prepare to roll itself into a ball with few potentially sensitive areas left exposed. In policy terms, that meant offering just two firm emissions reduction commitments – introducing a $20bn off-budget fund to 'rewire the nation' to allow for more renewable energy, and adopting and revamping a failed Coalition policy to cut industrial pollution. Its position was backed by a report that suggested electricity prices and emissions would be much lower under Labor than under the Coalition.
It worked. These policies may not have won Labor the 2022 election, but they helped ensure it didn't lose it. The campaign was defined by Scott Morrison's failures, including on global heating. Climate-focused independents slayed Liberal MPs in previously safe seats and Anthony Albanese became prime minister.
Once in power, the climate change minister, Chris Bowen, and the treasurer, Jim Chalmers, oversaw additional policies to support large-scale clean energy and cleaner cars and provide tax credits for new green industries. While some would take a while to take effect, they could make a meaningful difference. It was a start.
But Russia invaded Ukraine, sending global fossil fuel prices skyward, and household electricity bills in Australia went up, not down. Inflation – a global phenomenon – made governing challenging. At the start of this year, Labor was under siege, with public and private polling suggesting it was headed for a historic first-term loss. The party once again took a defensive approach on climate before an election. It released just one policy: a battery subsidy scheme.
And then the world turned again. Donald Trump moved into the White House, interest rates eased and the Liberal party under Peter Dutton ran a disastrous election campaign not helped by an unbelievable nuclear energy plan. Albanese won in a landslide.
Three months on, Australia's climate political landscape is barely recognisable from four years ago. The power dynamic is reversed. Where Labor once feared being attacked, it is now the aggressor, mocking the Coalition as it toys with tearing itself apart over whether its lesson from the loss will be to drop its support for Australia cutting emissions to net zero by 2050.
Nearly everything about the opposition's climate debate is a charade. It went to the election planning to increase climate pollution by abolishing Labor's climate policies and introducing none of its own for at least a decade. It opposed net zero but just didn't own up to it. And the election result makes it largely irrelevant for the next 2 ½ years anyway.
With Barnaby Joyce as its most vocal climate policy advocate, its internal fight is being held miles away from where most Australians live or how they think. Meanwhile, parties and candidates that openly back the case for deep cuts in emissions – Labor, 'teal' independents and the Greens – share a clear majority of the primary vote.
It doesn't mean everyone who voted for one of these groups wants the same thing, or that political support for their policies will necessarily be endless. But it does suggest there is an opportunity here – that most people are open to Australia being much more aggressive on climate if the case that it is good for the country and its people is well made.
The timing couldn't be better. Big decisions are looming, including on Australia's emissions reduction target for 2035 and the policies that will be needed to back it up. Labor backbenchers are arguing it should be ambitious.
The evidence of the past couple of weeks is that, wherever it lands, the government should expect fierce resistance. Take News Corp's national flagship, The Australian. Since parliament returned late last month, it has dedicated significant space to what is basically a campaign against climate action dressed up as news coverage.
Its approach is not new. The costs of acting and the challenges that come with renewable energy are over-emphasised and exaggerated. The costs of not acting, including the opportunity cost of continuing to back fossil fuels over clean alternatives, are ignored. The level of international action – a valid area for sceptical scrutiny – is painted in the worst possible light. The global climate science consensus is rejected, downplayed or not mentioned.
The implicit message is that cutting greenhouse gas emissions is a weird, leftwing pursuit, rather than a serious and inevitable challenge that needs to be addressed. Who needs solutions when you have kneejerk ideological certainty?
Privately, members of the government are scathing of how the country's biggest newspaper publisher reports on the climate crisis. They also acknowledge the company is less influential than it used to be. But Canberra is a small place, Australia a limited media market, and old habits are hard to shake. A key question for Albanese and his cabinet colleagues will be whether they are willing to just ignore the company's one-sided framing and avoid being fooled into believing it represents a mainstream public that it needs to factor in.
Put another way: Labor will need to decide if it has ditched the crouch.
The government is about to receive long-awaited advice from the Climate Change Authority on the 2035 target. It is likely to include a target range, based on what the authority's board considers ambitious and achievable. It's been consulting on a cut of 65% to 75% below 2005 levels.
Given where the electorate and future economy sit, there is a strong case for Labor to set a target at the ambitious end of that range and stretch to get there. Some emissions cuts – through better energy efficiency and reducing potent methane leaks at fossil fuel sites – are cost effective and just waiting to be made.
Others would be tougher, requiring the government to acknowledge that local emissions from expanding export coal and gas industries are substantial and can't be written off forever as someone else's problem – and that new green industries in hydrogen, steel and other commodities are likely to struggle to flourish until their polluting competitors decline.
An ambitious climate goal would be demanding. But it could also trigger a range of positives. Who knows? If well-handled, they might even include the government being rewarded by the bulk of the population, who have now hinted more than once it is what they want.