Australia faces worsening climate risks while expanding fossil fuel projects and deepening its ties with Washington. Could Anthony Albanese pursue a more independent path on climate, energy and foreign policy?
It’s hard to imagine a more unlikely proposition, especially about our current prime minister. The possibility of any Australian PM acting independently of the United States, even with Donald Trump in the White House, is quite literally unthinkable. But as Albanese is the man who signed off on Scott Morrison’s disastrously ill-conceived – unless you count short-term political advantage, at least – AUKUS project, he needs to redeem himself.
It isn’t impossible to act independently either. Other middle power leaders in Europe and Canada have recognised that no amount of ingratiation and fawning will ever satisfy Trump. On the contrary, supine fealty only invites greater demands and humiliation. Growing a backbone in such circumstances seems entirely appropriate. It might even be supported by the Australian electorate, who are finally realising that our alliance partner is not just unreliable, but may be making relations with our neighbours more difficult, too.
In the still extremely unlikely event that the Albanese government wanted to model enlightened, progressive, independent-minded policies, what might they look like and why would they be better? If there’s one thing that ought to engender universal approval from everyone but the Trump administration, it’s doing something positive and constructive about climate change.
At a time when the natural environment is literally falling apart before our eyes, recognising that unmitigated climate change is now the greatest threat facing all of us – even the privileged denizens of the global north – is the least any leader ought to be able to manage. True, we’re unlikely to have a Nepalese-style cataclysm, but it’s almost certain we’ll have our own version of the climate apocalypse this summer thanks to El Niño.
One might hope that Nepal’s misery and the loss of Australian lives might have provided the proverbial wake-up call for our leaders. And yet, despite Penny Wong putting her serious face on, $5 million and a few experts in crisis recovery was the most Australia could manage by way of assistance.
But if we can’t offer much help with the consequences of climate change, what about addressing the causes? Australia is, after all, responsible for more than its fair share of CO₂ emissions, and this is likely to get worse rather than better. For example, it’s estimated that Woodside’s Burrup Hub gas project will generate 6.1 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions over its proposed 50-year lifetime.
The Albanese government gave approval for the continuation of this project despite Woodside having “scrapped its long-term emissions and clean energy targets, even after enjoying a period of windfall oil gains caused by the Iran conflict”. It’s good to know someone is benefiting from yet another American-made strategic fiasco.
Under the circumstances, this might be seen as an opportune moment to abandon the ludicrously expensive AUKUS project, which a growing number of critics argue is misguided on strategic grounds and unlikely ever to be realised. That would, of course, mean breaking with the Trump administration, which remains an unthinkable proposition, not least because some people stand to make a lot of money from its continuation.
And yet there are things that a self-respecting middle power government could do that wouldn’t be quite so existentially fraught and might even be supported. For example, given that coal remains the most polluting source of energy, closing it down in Australia would be an unambiguously good thing, not least because it doesn’t employ many people or pay much tax anyway.
Not only might such a gesture be welcomed by many Australians and our neighbours, but it might also set a good example for others to emulate. After all, Mark Carney talks a big game on progressive diplomacy and standing up to the US, but his country still exploits tar sands, the pollution from which is much higher than the government or fossil fuel companies admit.
Likewise, Albanese could encourage China to abandon building coal-fired power stations and switch even more quickly to renewables, in which it is a world leader. Indeed, perhaps China and Australia could cooperate and coordinate their actions.
I realise this all sounds rather fanciful, but what is the ‘realistic’ alternative? How many wake-up calls do political leaders around the world need before they start taking actions that may actually make a difference? How do they want to be remembered by future generations?
How will Albanese explain his failure to act when it was still possible to make a difference and even avoid the truly hellish climate outcomes that have been predicted for decades but which are now unfolding with alarming speed and intensity?
Better to be remembered as a well-intentioned idealist than a calculating cynic only interested in short-term political survival. Doing what you can where you can is all any of us can do. But some of us have chosen to put themselves in positions where they could and should do much more. That’s what leadership is supposed to be about, isn’t it?
Mark Beeson is an Adjunct Professor at the University of Technology Sydney and Griffith University. His latest book is Environmental Anarchy? International Relations Theory and Practice in the Anthropocene, (Bristol University Press: 2021) He has also written Environmental Populism: The Politics of Survival; in the Anthropocene Palgrave 2019