Governments Dysfunctional in Time of Need

Phill Parsons

Industry will battle to manipulate the Liberals into supporting the government’s emissions trading scheme, a mild business as usual model lobbied into position with Rudd, Wong, Tanner and Swann and Fergusson over the coming months. [See Milne article on how it works, a cash for policy access approach] This is necessary to avoid the Greens causing real change, proceeding to a low carbon economy more quickly than dead slow astern, standing still as the current of economic opportunities pass by. These vested interests have little choice, their current bottom line being more important than any future costs, they must serve it to survive in their positions of power. A resource consuming industry, coal fired electricity, which has a date for closure, sees its value vanish. Labor cannot overstep the mark and threaten the dinosaur coal and oil industries or they will pay to run a fear campaign that makes the last Tasmanian election look fair and honest.
Dysfunctional government knows not wither it is going and so is manufacturing contradictions aplenty. Planting on a broadscale to address carbon is an idea with similar implications to biofuel.

Biofuel is good in itself but if its production affects food availability or requires the sacrifice of carbon rich natural forest for oil palm plantations it becomes a nonsense in overall terms. Unsustainable production of such fuels is unacceptable. [1]

To offset 20% of Australia’s carbon emissions by plantations between 11 and 15M ha would have to be planted. Australia has 47M ha of arable land, so putting 1/4 to 1/3 down to trees fails one commonsense test.

Of course planting out non arable land or allowing natural forest to reach its carbon sequestration potential is a different question, especially if new plantings are also performing environmental functions and enhancing biodiversity. However planting blue gums in the range of the swift parrot whilst cutting down extant habitat for a low value non essential product is a response one could only expect from a dysfunctional government.

The Tasmanian government is supporting plantings to offset its carbon emissions as well as for biodiversity, whilst it also allows the logging of the habitat of endangered species such as the swift parrot and degrading carbon storages in forests. Such contradictory madness is typical of the dysfunctional process of a government with someone else’s vision and the behavior pattern of a captive minion.

The plantation estate in Australia is 1.9M ha, with last year seeing 85,000 ha added, so the use of plantations to offset emissions has very limited potential and will soon run its course if commonsense prevails.

For those of us living in a plantation sacrifice zone, i.e. close to a production point and with rainfall above 600mm pa, the impacts on biodiversity as remnant vegetation is cleared, on landscape as plantations cover broad areas and on economies as the annual cash flows from farming shrink and as someone else’s vision captures local government planning, plantations are an abominable abomination.

However if we are to move from logging natural forests, in Australia already the reservoir of 25.5Gt CO2-e with a potential to sequester a further 24% of Australia’s 2005 emissions and still have a wood product industry, i.e. not take rob someone else’s carbon store in another country for our own overconsumption, we will need more wood from plantations.

It would be preferable if they were a part of integrated farming activities, where they could provide shelter, attack salinity, assist in environmental functions whilst being intensively managed, but the price for wood needs to change and to do that the logging of native forests needs to be replaced with a system of payment for the storing the carbon therein, giving wood a carbon value that follows the emissions trading market.

This is what makes new planting a nonsense as you cannot have enough monocultural plantations to equal the natural forest carbon carrying capacity without shutting down a large percentage of Australia’s agriculture. Much better to integrate wood production with farming as many other advanced complex and mature economies have done for ages.

However that dysfunctional process mentioned above that passes for government in Australia would need to change radically, abandoning the colonial approach to environmental destruction and resource robbery. The power of the CFMEU to determine government forestry policies, its coal mining policies and its energy investment policies is legendary and it takes a mighty Labor leader to avoid being one of their minions.

Detroit Dinosaur

An example of dysfunctional policy lies in the car industry. Supported since 1948 when the first Holden rolled off the assembly line, Labor PM Ben Chifley, train engine driver and union man at the wheel, what do we have for the humungous multi decade investment in car manufacturing?

The Australian industry has retained a dinosaur image by continuing to manufacture medium sized gas guzzlers as its core business when the customers have voted with their feet and bought small cars and/or more energy efficient ones, many of them imported.

If you want proof for my assertion you only need look at the sales figures, Australian manufactured cars have shrunk to 19% of the annual sales, loosing 12% of market share in a short 5 years. [Bracks Report into the Australian Car Industry]

And now, under the green banner, Brack’s report recommends to government it should subsidize this industry further, although the tariff fall to 5% programmed for 2010 should occur.

Well, if for national policy reasons, or even just to fill Rudd’s desire to live in a country where they make things, Australia keeps a car industry what should a green one produce?. [As though a house, or can of peaches or a myriad of other local products are not made or that car manufacturing is Australian owned. One thing they should make is bicycles, as they are even more efficient than walking.]

We already have the carbon fibre aeroplane. The new Boeing Dreamliner is made of this material for its strength to weight ratio so, car bodies should, if fuel efficiency is important, be made of this material.

The Rocky Mountain Institute have done it, scaling up production is what is holding back this technology. The Australian car industry should scale up. Steel bodies with paint on them [or not] are for items that stand still, like the fridge. The Toorak tractor would be more efficient with a carbon fibre body.

And then we have the crazy situation of the petrol engine. China requires better efficiency than this country, America and Brazil have vehicles able to run on ethanol and Australians have to convert their cars to gas using a $2,000 government subsidy to get their Australian made car to run on the cheaper and more carbon friendly fuel for a car already made with a $2,000 government subsidy.

Yes folks it’s a double dip of $4,000 to get it right, $2000 to one manufacturer to make it and then $2,000 to another to change the engine. This is high order farce, clearly only a dysfunctional government would tolerate such nonsense. Bracks seems to have missed that point.

So we have the 2 parameters for ‘green’ cars, efficient low carbon emission engines and lightweight bodies.

If Australian based multinationals can’t manufacture to those parameters here, and Toyota indicates it can come part way with its 10,000 local hybrid Camry’s, then we should say good bye to those making the gas guzzler, the modern equivalent of a sedan chair, both being well past their utility. Import engine efficiency in an overseas made car, no tariff, no subsidy, just rules that make low carbon emitting cars the only ones allowed, let’s see if Friedman’s idea works with cars as the Productivity Commission believes if the Australian industry can only be a Detroit dinosaur.

Can other things be made in this country besides pale copies of Detroit disturbed dreaming?.

Wind Power

Tasmanians will remember the Vestas wind turbine blade factory that heralded a new era until the coal industry managed to lobby the Howard government into killing off wind farms.

They may also remember the then Environment Minister, Senator Ian Campbell, who intervened to save the orange bellied parrot from being chopped up by the turbine blades in an area where none had ever been recorded, the Bald Hills of Victoria.

Now, for admitting he knew Brian Burke, Labor fixer, he is no longer in parliament. Instead he is a Sea Shepherd supporter, so his heart may have been in the right place, unlike Turnbull, hot for carbon emitting pulpmills but wanting policies that address the changing climate. Contradictory and dysfunctional, Malcolm should resile from his decision if he wishes any credibility, the likelihood of that pulpmill being built now close to 0, he should fess up he was following orders from above. Of course he can keep going for the gold of Liberal leadership and receive the Peter Garrett dead albatross award for crossed purposes and abandoned principles.

Back to the question what is Vestas up to? The BBC tells us.

“A surge in demand for renewable energy has led to a large order backlog for the world’s biggest wind turbine-maker, Vestas Wind Systems. The Danish firm said it had 7.2bn euros (A$12.2bn) worth of orders still to fulfill at the end of June, up 67% on a year earlier. “

A spot different to local car manufacturers, eh.

“Vestas made 98m euros profit after tax in the first six months of 2008, 44% higher than the same period in 2007. ”Better profitability than either Detroit dreaming car manufacturer or many other old technology businesses.

“The firm is expecting further growth as the use of wind power grows globally. Wind power currently accounts for just over 1% of the world’s energy production, but Vestas expects it to account for at least 10% by 2020.” And with a national MRET of 20% perhaps we will see blade manufacturing return to Tasmania, as wind farms again pop up across the landscape.

“Vestas said it would “invest heavily” in expanding the firm in order to meet the higher demand for “many years going forward”. As a result, it is planning to open new factories and expand existing plants in its major markets of the US, China and Europe, where governments have committed to an increased use of wind energy.”

As I have predicted time and again, but some have failed to get it time and again, the argument that we’ll all be ruined by changing energy sources to produce a low Carbon economy is far from true, as Vestas’ success testifies. With functional policies leading edge firms could be attracted to investing in Australia with its skilled manufacturing labor force and its financial and governmental advantages.

[Note for Peter Garrett; Mean testing rebates for cutting edge technologies cuts the business. It is dysfunctional and his dead albatross award now has a double cross clasp to go with it.]

Time for a Shift

Of course one would hope such firms will not be locating too close to the sea now that the Victorian government has sought Federal assistance to relocate coastal infrastructure following on the advice of the Department of Climate Change that the coastline will move inland and storm surges and king tides will cause coastal flooding with a sea level rise of 1m. [Peter Lyons, Advocate columnist, should note this and write a strong letter to the PM given his surety that no changes in sea level will be allowed by the higher authority [Pel’s Pagan Plot remains an unwritten addendum]]

Whilst Victoria is seeking Federal government assistance to relocate coastal towns the Tasmanian government plans a waterfront hospital. The respective Premiers should have a chat and get their story line together, or they will appear dysfunctional [again].

No wonder the Feds said land ownership, land use and planning were State and local government responsibilities. If Victoria was compensated then responsibility for every coastal development would be at the feet of Canberra.

And who in their right mind could compensate a state that is building a new coal fired power plant. They promise it will be cleaner, the dirty brown coal dried so it is only as dirty as the black stuff. Where is the geosequestration, can the plant be retrofitted? If Vestas is too busy why not a solar plant or indeed a solar power station on every roof in Victoria. And do we need a plasma TV in every home when they use 4 times the power or the CRT.

It is well beyond time to move out of dumb ways of doing dumb things. The only drag on such a process is the studied ignorance of vested union and industry interests, manipulating the vision of government and capturing the minions that inhabit the corridors of the frank and fearless as well as the Treasury benches.

Special deals for special mate’s writ large. [For those interested in a clear example of how it works read Glenn Milne’s article in the Australian 18AUG2008 No Party is ready to stop mainlining cash http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24196163-7583,00.html

Critical Polity

To avoid this a critical polity is needed. The only party critical of such dysfunction on climate at a national level is the Greens. The Liberals have abandoned leadership on climate and will delay a start on reducing carbon pollution using the excuse we are not ready and then when that no longer holds traction a go slow because we cannot afford it.

SA Premier Mike Rann should declare Victoria a rogue state for building a coal fired power plant and therefore adding to the drying of the Murray Darling Basin. Surely, it must rank equal with Queensland taking water from the Paroo, which he declared was equal to terrorism.

Well Liberals, where is thy spine, why isn’t the Labor Premier Brumby dangerously out of touch when he allows a coal fired power station and wants money to defend against sea level rise? Because the alternative, Ted Bailleau, would do the same. [The Liberals need a very long retreat so you can work out who is the leader and what is important and either split into a new party and the dinosaurs or put them out to pasture in Jurassic Park.]

Government, doing the bidding of vested interests to retain the status quo of government support and subsidy for no beneficial outcome for the climate, will be forced into negotiating with the Greens if the Liberals remain intransigent.

The first point of conflict in such a scenario will be the Liberal leadership.

Industry will battle to manipulate the Liberals into supporting the government’s emissions trading scheme, a mild business as usual model lobbied into position with Rudd, Wong, Tanner and Swann and Fergusson over the coming months. [See Milne article on how it works, a cash for policy access approach]

This is necessary to avoid the Greens causing real change, proceeding to a low carbon economy more quickly than dead slow astern, standing still as the current of economic opportunities pass by.

These vested interests have little choice, their current bottom line being more important than any future costs, they must serve it to survive in their positions of power. A resource consuming industry, coal fired electricity, which has a date for closure, sees its value vanish.

The NSW government is in this position, desperate to sell its coal fired power stations to avoid the cost of installing carbon capture and storage or building new plants if that cannot be retrofitted if CCS is ever made to work, or closing the plants down. Failure to get the Liberals to support the mild business as usual model measures now being lobbied for by unions and business will mean killing off the Rudd government if it gives in to the Greens and sets the high emissions reduction targets needed to be taken by the developed world to get the emerging economies to act.

Don’t Threaten a Dinosaur

Labor cannot overstep the mark and threaten the dinosaur coal and oil industries or they will pay to run a fear campaign that makes the last Tasmanian election look fair and honest.

Putting the blame on the Greens in the 2010 election will be very important for all climate dinosaurs. Indeed we may see the trigger for a double dissolution set in place because the Greens are unable to support the dysfunctional policies the Rudd government tries to sell as Carbon pollution reduction, Labor is unwilling to change them and the Liberals are unable to support Labor’s proposal.

If Rudd wishes to avoid such an election trigger he will have to negotiate down to the Liberals plan and thus have a very hard sell to be re-elected, the promise of Kyoto, of meaningful targets and of Australia taking on its share of solving the problems that climate instability will bring, gone to the plan Howard had in 2007.

With the next round of Global greenhouse gas reduction targets set in Copenhagen in 2009 and with many in Australian industry seeing the need for the surety emissions trading offers, whoever the Liberal leader is, emissions trading is coming and they must support a scheme or they will find empty bags when they go a begging for the next elections funds.

However, the World Trade Organization’s failed negotiations also point to a possible failure to get all countries in or to set meaningful targets. At least we will know before the electoral cycle heats up.

Credible alternatives will be in front of the voters, the environmental, social and economic implications of the policies up for debate, making climate policy and thus the environment the central issue of the 2010 national election.

Labor will try to make tax and welfare the central issue. Having completed their review they will be seeking a mandate for at least 2 major changes, but I fail to see how tax cuts and pension increases will excite debate unless they make an accounting error. The other side will offer similar. The Greens offered pension increases last election, paid for, along with other measures including solarizing homes [EASI] by no tax cuts.

In 45 years since the flooding of Lake Pedder was opposed by a small group in Tasmania, an unnecessary environmental catastrophe for that landscape, the environment will have moved from a Tasmanian debate about energy to a matter central to the nation’s future, how do we keep our quality of life and share that with the rest of the world, without consuming the environment upon which we depend.

This will be a critical test of the national capacity to walk, talk and chew at the same time.

The choice is to see the base of the economy and society wither and die from drought, fed in part by the manufacture of dinosaurs, be they 4 wheeled or coal eating, or elect to take the Vestas direction and try to build a way out from the sentence the laws of physics and chemistry are imposing in reaction to our dysfunctional behaviors.

California has set a 20% reduction in its electricity supply from fossil fuels by 2010, in 30 months time at most. How will they do that?. The major electricity supplier, Pacific Gas and Electric, have signed contracts to have an 800Mw solar photovoltaic power plant built. It will power the equivalent of 239,000 average Californian homes and take an area of 32.5km2 midway between the LA and SF conurbations.

I would prefer to live in a country where they only made things that enhanced sustainability, reduced environmental destruction and provided for the essential needs of people first and foremost, a different dreaming to that of the Detroit idea of modernity, a drive from one consumptive experience to another.

Phill Parsons notes that the part of Tasmania where he live has relocated that several degrees north this year in line with the recorded trends obeying those laws mentioned above. Some may remember this as a theme of discussion a couple of years back when the agents of the powers that be tried to sell us the benefits of a warmer world, they just forgot the drier bit for those living in southern Australia.

For those who are concerned about the Coorong, a decision must be made. Do we keep raising the artificial barrage level that made the lakes fresh only 60 years ago in an attempt to keep out the sea, whose level is rising, in the hope we can find enough water in a drying inland to stop the salt from entering from below the lakes during dry periods or allow the lakes to return to their estuarine state.

If the barrage level is raised how much more water will be needed and how much infrastructure will have to be relocated to retain the pressure needed to exclude the salt water lenses associated with that new sea level?.

With sea level on the way up coastal policy will become very problematic.

Icons affected will be St Kilda, Manly, Sydney Airport, Sandy Bay, The Hobart Waterfront, Byron Bay, Coolangatta, the Gold Coast, Glenelg, all beaches and many coastal towns such as Ballina, Ulverstone and St Helens.

Kanute like we may wish to be, but expending endless treasure on stopping the inevitable or building a new economy to stop rises above several metres is the choice we must make. The Dutch know how costly it is to hold back the sea and their adaptive measures are paid for by the productivity of the Rhine delta lands. They are very worried about sea level rises and have changed their energy production to reflect that concern

If wrong or a magic solution is found no need to move uphill, but if not we haven’t wasted our efforts and endless walling and Thames River scale barrages on rivers such as the Swan, the Yarra, the Brisbane, the Nerang, the Torrens, the Mersey, the Tamar, etc. And what do you do with places like Rockhamton where the coincidence of a king tide and heavy rain floods downtown now or Hobart where the barrage is too long to contemplate given the value of the assets, even if it includes a $1B hospital?

Canberra may fund selected sea walls but as a principle it’s a hiding to nowhere for the public purse and we have to accept that there will be losses even if we make the cuts in emissions the developed world needs to commit to avoid dangerous climate instability.

The value of the losses to infrastructure from that 1m sea level rise the Federal Department of Climate Change warns about indicate the rate we should invest in cutting emissions without taking into account the advantages to the economy, society and the environment from heavily investing in energy efficiency and new low carbon energy supplies for a big cut in emissions in the near term.

Phill Parsons

[1] Readers should note that biofuel made from algae grown on feed from power station emissions and or sewage offers fuel, cleaned water and the CO2 from power station emissions consumed by that algae.