Contrary to Scott Morrison’s contention, we can usefully set a target date to achieve net zero carbon emissions without exact knowledge of the cost and how the target will be delivered.
The science is well and truly in: the consequences of further global warming are horrific.
This conclusion is now accepted by every other advanced economy, and they have all set deadlines for achieving net zero carbon emissions so as to limit the damage from climate change as much as is judged to be realistically possible.
Yet, unlike all the other advanced market economies, Morrison still refuses to set a 2050 deadline for the achievement of net zero carbon emissions by Australia. According to Morrison: “Until such time as we can be very clear with the Australian people about what the cost of that is and how that plan can deliver on that commitment, it would be deceptive on the Australian people and not honest with them to make such a commitment”.
At first sight, this logic might seem to provide a sound basis for policy making. After all we do not buy something in a shop without knowing the price. And as far as possible public policy making should equally be based on a full assessment of the costs and benefits.
But the decision-making underpinning public policy is often not like buying an existing product from a shop for which the cost is known with complete certainty in advance. Instead, the purpose of a new public policy is frequently to achieve a new outcome, which is different, and for which there cannot be an existing cost that is known in advance with any certainty.
But what is worse is that the Coalition Government has a track record of committing to public expenditures without knowing the cost whenever it suits the Government’s political agenda. Thus, the Grattan Institute has found that “Of 32 [infrastructure] projects larger than $500 million committed to since 2016, only eight had a business case either published, or assessed by a relevant infrastructure body at the time of commitment.”
In addition, cost over-runs are endemic in infrastructure planning in Australia. Of the infrastructure projects valued at $20 million or more and built over the last twenty years, the Grattan Institute has found that the actual costs exceeded the promised costs by 21 per cent. But the projects announced before any assessment are particularly risky. Thus, the Grattan Institute found that although only one third of the projects are announced prematurely, they account for more than three quarters of the cost overruns.
But the poor assessment and planning of infrastructure investment pales into insignificance by comparison with decisions relating to the defence of Australia. Among all decisions, the most important, most costly, and most risky decision that a government can ever make is a decision to go to war.
But when were the decisions by various Coalition Governments to go to war in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan informed by an assessment of the likely costs or accompanied by a fully laid-out plan to win the war? We may have understood that the purpose of each of these engagements was to enhance the defence of Australia by (hopefully) securing the American alliance, but where was the plausible strategy for winning?
Instead, none of these wars have proceeded as we expected. The costs in both lives and treasure have always been greater than the public were led to believe at the outset, and the outcomes much less than promised.
This of course is not to argue that we should never go to war. Rather the point is that some very important policy decisions are inevitably uncertain and have to be made on a balance of probabilities. And this uncertainty typically increases with the importance and significance of the decision.
So why is Morrison demanding information on costs and plans before he will authorise action on climate change, when the same sort of information has not been available for many other decisions that Coalition Governments have taken?
Furthermore, in the case of climate change we do know with enormous confidence that the benefits of acting to limit climate change will massively outweigh the costs of delaying. And we also know that the longer we delay, the more the costs of climate change will rise, as will the cost of trying to limit the amount of the change.
We should therefore start by focussing on the cheapest ways of limiting carbon emissions which means switching to renewable sources of electricity as quickly as possible. These renewable sources are already more than competitive with coal and gas, and can provide new economic opportunities for Australia, as Ross Garnaut has shown in his book, Superpower: Australia’s low carbon opportunity.
In short, we can confidently commit to a target for net zero carbon emissions by 2050, knowing that it will not damage the economy, but can provide an advantage. The switch will involve some economic pain for displaced labour, and steps should be taken to assist those people to find alternative employment. But instead of refusing to commit to a target to limit carbon emissions and delaying action to achieve that target, a prudent approach to policy making would recognise that we must act now.
Anyone with any real experience of policy making would know that nothing could be more phoney than Morrison’s excuses for not taking the necessary action on climate change. The real reason why Morrison will not take face up to his responsibilities is because he is unwilling to face down the recalcitrants on his backbench who got rid of his predecessor.
Michael Keating is a former Secretary of the Departments of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Finance and Employment, and Industrial Relations. He is presently a visiting fellow at the Australian National University.
Comments
6 responses to “Morrison’s faulty logic in opposing a net zero carbon emissions target.”
Eminently – and obviously – sensible article, as are most of the comments.
But, even before we get to all these sound refutations of Morrison’s fluff and flannel, I keep running into a very simple threshold question: “If you don’t know the cost, why don’t you @$%&ing well find out?”
There is considerable existing research data from institutions and academia…and, as Michael Keating will know as well as anyone, it is not beyond the skills of Treasury and Finance to provide intelligent estimates.
The real reason for Morrison’s dodging is that everyone with any understanding of the realities of the situation knows perfectly well that, if honest numbers are given, this will rank as the greatest bargain that has ever been on offer in all of human history. The investment would not be trivial, but the return would be spectacular.
I don’t recall any cost/benefit analysis or plans before the Feds launched their various stimulus packages to address the Covid emergency, and climate change is a far bigger emergency, rapidly developing.
But I suspect Morrison’s reasons for abrogating his primary responsibility to ensure the security of the community goes a bit deeper than a reluctance to take on the recalcitrants. Most of the federal parliamentarians in both the Coalition and ALP still do not really accept that human-induced climate change is real, lack the intellect to understand the science and are far more concerned about their re-election prospects than our security.
Or possibly too many of them find Hugh Mackay’s suggestion, that climate change is merely “Gods Will”, provides an easy way out of taking any responsibility for action:
https://publish.pearlsandirritations.com/what-if-climate-change-is-merely-seen-as-gods-will/
I thought it pretty obvious why Morrison will not adopt a carbon tax, for that is what it is. But it is a tax that ultimately will not be required, just as the revenue from the tobacco tax is declining.
Morrison is beholden to the coal and fossil fuel industries, and does not want to rock their boat.
Isn’t the best and simplest rebuttal that when JFK told Congress they would put a man on the moon by the end of the decade he had no idea if it could be done nor how much it would cost. When it was costed NASA did an estimate then set the budget at double that – and they delivered within that budget.
The scientific evidence is that the atmosphere/ocean system is already travelling through irreversible climate tipping points, which may be too late to change, perhaps unless massive efforts at CO2 draw-down are made.
This would require budgets bigger than those consumed by the military. The world thus has a choice: Either try and save the life support systems of Earth, or keep fighting wars.
One thing is clear. Governments are NO LONGER LISTENING to what climate science is indicating.
Science and evidence behind Net Zero Emissions or the Post Carbon Superpower is less compelling than that for Global Warming. To its credit, this indie website has published that heresy, more than once.
The problem is, the more Albanese wraps himself in the pure raiments, he becomes even less electable. If you’re on SportsBet, take the current odds about Morrison. You won’t get them in 2022.