Blog

This piece was originally written to form the background for Stuart Rosewarne’s contribution to the Carbon Tracker Podcast episode entitled Australia’s Resource Curse – Navigating the end of the era of coal, uploaded on 23 May 2019. [Relevant segment 30:43-37:05]

The re-election of the conservative Coalition government in Australia this weekend came as a complete surprise because in the lead up to the election the numerous opinion polls made clear that the leading and overwhelming concern among Australian voters was the failure of government to adopt any meaningful measures to deal with climate change.

The great majority of people polled also indicated opposition to proceeding with the development of the Adani coal mine in Queensland. The election result, in confirming Scott Morrison as prime minister, flies in the face of the criticism levelled against him for carrying a lump of coal into parliament and urging his fellow parliamentarians that there was nothing to fear from coal.

We can celebrate the defeat of a former Prime Minister and climate denier, Tony Abbott, by a woman who advocates urgent action on climate change, but there is cause for despair at the election result. There was a substantial swing against Labor in Queensland, as conservatives ran a vociferous campaign in a classic ‘jobs versus the environment’ scare that exposed Labor’s vacillating position on the future of the Adani coal mine. The Greens fared worse. The win gives more air to a cohort within the coalition that has pressed for government support to subsidise the construction of new coal-fired power plants. It is highly likely the conservative government will assist in the development of the Adani mine and other proposed ventures in the Galilee Basin and beyond. This is in anticipation of increased exports to meet growing demand for thermal coal in Southeast Asia.

Yet, there is also cause for hope, that some of these planned developments won’t proceed. There is some opposition among New South Wales coalminers to government subsidising expansion of Queensland coal production for fear that increased output would erode their share of the export market and drive down prices that are already under some pressure. The economic viability of some projects, including the Adani mine, have been called into question.

The continuing commitment to coal is unlikely to hold back investment in renewable energy projects and by households in solar roof panels. All the signs point to an acceleration of investment in renewables in defiance of, in fact because of, the coalition’s climate change policy vacuum. The positive efforts of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency will continue to drive the surge in renewable energy as will the significant State and Territory government initiatives to support transitioning.

Perhaps of more immediate effect in bringing an end to the coal rush are a couple of recent watershed developments that speak directly to the damaging impact of coal.

In May, the New South Wales Land and Environment Court rejected an appeal by Gloucester Resources to challenge a decision by the planning department to not approve their Rocky Hill coal mine development application. The grounds for the decision were that the mine would have significant planning, amenity and social impacts. In a first, the judgement declared that what is urgently needed “is a rapid and deep decrease in greenhouse gas emissions … in order to meet generally agreed climate targets.” This was “because the greenhouse gas emissions of the coal mine and its coal product will increase global total concentrations of greenhouse gas emissions at a time when … [the] dire consequences should be avoided.”

The second development came with the Western Australia Environment Protection Authority issuing a revised Environmental Factor Guidance earlier this year. Ostensibly a technical manual on assessing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and appropriate measures for their abatement, the Guidance is explicitly designed to do what the national policy does not, and that is to provide greater certainty and “a more stringent approach” by fossil fuel extractive enterprises to reducing and offsetting emissions with a view to meeting “Australia’s international obligations on reducing emissions.” The Guidance sets clear thresholds on emissions standards and what mitigation measures will likely be required. While withdrawn by the Premier following industry protests, the EPA has indicated that it will proceed with industry consultations and re-introduce the guidelines later this year.

These shifts in planning benchmarks reflect a consolidation of the overwhelming public sentiment in Australia calling for action to deal with the threat of escalating climate change and the deleterious consequences of the reliance on coal as a principal energy source. This shift is also manifest in the recommendations of a wide range of federal regulatory authorities as well as industry associations, which have demonstrated a remarkable degree of convergence with respect to disclosures on climate and other related emerging risks. – most notably, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, the Australian Accounting Standards Board, the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board and the Reserve Bank of Australia. these are increasingly being aligned with the established benchmarks set by corporations and institutional investors that are members of the Investor Group on Climate Change and/or signed onto the Carbon Disclosure Project, or the companies and financial institutions that have signed on to deliberations on standards being developed by the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, and then there is the ASX’s Corporate Governance Council Corporate Governance Principles and Recommendations, which is sets out some benchmarks for risk disclosure reporting, including consistent climate-related financial risk disclosures, to inform investors, lenders, insurers, and other stakeholders. These developments are prompting more robust assessments of climate change risks and should drive action that takes into account the increasing non-viability of coal as an energy source.

The political debate on climate change is not going to go away. Indeed, it is becoming much sharper.

The declaration of a Pacific Islands forum on climate change held in May is one illustration of this. Convened in partnership with the UN General-Secretary, Antonio Guterres, the forum discussed the ‘global catastrophe’ of climate change and called for deeper emissions cuts and for “transformative action” to be taken.

True to form, the Australian government delegates who participated in the forum did not sign the final statement, but if this forum was not going shake them out of their fossil fuel intransigence, the launch of a landmark human rights complaint by Torres Strait islanders against the Australian government likely will. In a first of its kind, the claim, lodged with the UN Human Rights Committee, alleges that the Morrison government’s failure to act towards tackling climate change contributes to rising seas, tidal surges, coastal erosion and inundation of communities and violates their fundamental human rights. The claim seeks compensation as well as financial support for building infrastructure to mitigate the effects of climate change and calls for the UN to pressure Australia to reduce its emissions by 2030 and end reliance on coal by 2050.

The re-elected conservative Coalition government will now have to face an Australian public that overwhelmingly rejects the government’s fixation with a fossil fuel future and a corporate world that is increasingly reluctant to commit to this coal-based future. As well, it is going to have to take more seriously its international obligations and certainly at the very least its Paris commitments.

There is good reason to not be too overwhelmed by despair, although bringing an end to the coal rush will clearly require continuing perseverance and political pressure.