Report – Regional Australia Institute, 13 August 2023
Towards net zero – empowering regional communities
Australia’s transition to a net zero economy by 2050 rests on the strength of the regions, where renewable energy and transmission projects are and will be built. Without strategic coordination and collaboration between industry, government and regional communities, the opportunity to strengthen and rebalance the nation through the net zero transition will be lost. This report makes eight recommendations towards bringing the regions to the table as a key partner.
The report found that community leaders need proponents of large-scale renewable projects to invest in key liveability measures locally such as housing, workforce, education, childcare and connectivity to build a lasting legacy for their residents.
This report makes eight recommendations including:
- For government to establish a Regional Prosperity Collective to match public and private investment commitments with place-based community needs
- The development of a Local Legacy Fund to deliver material economic benefits for communities
- A stronger role in local net zero transition strategic planning for regional leadership bodies with local knowledge such as the Regional Australia Development networks, Joint Councils and Regional Commissions
- The development of an Energy Transition Hub, which would provide regional communities with practical advice and clear information through a website or phone hotline
- A higher local government rate base for large-scale renewable projects to better reflect usage of council services, infrastructure and amenity and to support a just transition.
Read the full report here: https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2024-08/apo-nid327918.pdf
Ben Marshall
August 14, 2024 at 17:08
According to the report: “There is general goodwill towards the transition in regions. While there are pockets of opposition, the RAIʼs consultation found that this generally relates to a perception of a lack of genuine collaboration and engagement with communities and landholders, rather than the concept of the energy transition itself.”
Decision-makers outside rural communities routinely lay blame on communities for proposed developments hitting roadblocks. In this case it’s our perception that is at fault, although the report does emphasise the need for collaboration between those with the power, namely corporate and State interests, and those without, namely rural Australians. Unfortunately, collaboration seems to mean more of the same, but louder.
While the report references other reports in rightly recommending that “those affected by a decision have the right to be involved in the decision-making process”, the decision-makers outside our communities (often paid consultants) routinely ignore this principle and replace it with an emphasis on ‘informing’ communities ‘more effectively.’ In other words, again it’s our fault – we’re a bit slow, so if you talk louder, use simpler words to inform us ‘more effectively’, we’ll wave whatever development is being proposed through to the keeper.
This would only work if communities have veto power, but not by our Councils or State government, which are bought and paid for, but by the affected communities. Only then will government and proponents (often the same entity) be forced to genuinely collaborate.
There is often breathless credit given to Tasmania for reducing emissions (because the only metric of “action on climate” government care about is emissions reduction), but without mentioning why those emissions have come down. In our case it’s because of a brief lull in native forest logging, something that both our Liberal and Labor parties are aggressively ditching in order to expand and accelerate destruction of our native forests. Meanwhile, we have no meaningful targets or legislation to deal with the twin crises of climate and biodiversity – “200% renewables” bring just a political bumper sticker that means nothing of any substance, and is a way to look like action on climate while actually ignoring it.
The term “net zero” is similarly meaningless when used to ignore the wider context of climate change. If all it took to “fix” climate was renewable energy, I’d be a happy man. It’s not, and corporate State-capture means it’s just another way for governments to “create investment opportunities” (which means to socialise the costs) for global investors to make out like bandits in a new market (which means to privatise the profits).
Governments, and government-funded bodies like the Regional Australia Institute, avoid context and nuance, and this report ends up looking like any corporate or ReCFIT aspirational PR guff – no targets, no legislation, and no wider demand for systemic action on climate.
The biggest obstacle to genuine action on climate is phony action on climate. Feel-good exhortations encouraging corporate interests to appear to collaborate more, and for communities to be ‘better informed’ will not do a damned thing about climate-biodiversity. This report only backs a business-as-usual market-led approach that we already have.
I’ve read enough of this stuff. Spare us any more!