Politics of Failure: climate wars rehash glosses over Australia’s epic failure on energy

by | May 22, 2020 | Energy & Environment

Australia’s utter failure on carbon emissions was glossed over, and corporate machinations were ignored, in this week’s Four Corners climate wars program on ABC. Instead, it was a rehash which dwelt on the Canberra Bubble perspective, giving politicians from both sides of the aisle a platform to make excuses. Adam Lucas reports.

Those Australians who doubted the reality of human-induced climate change prior to the recent bushfires in December and January were forced to confront the fact that the severity and intensity of those fires were unprecedented. The bushfire crisis made it abundantly clear that dangerous climate change is a real and present threat, and Australia is on the frontline.

Although the bushfires didn’t silence the contrarians and confusionists, with the usual suspects ramping up their familiar “3D” strategy of dissemble, distract and deny, they did highlight the failure of Australia’s major political parties to introduce and successfully implement meaningful policies to reduce Australia’s soaring greenhouse gas emissions.

Last Monday night, ABCTV’s flagship investigative journalism programme, Four Corners broadcast its latest intervention in the so-called “climate wars”, leading the story with images from the recent bushfires. But unlike most of Four Corners’ previous forays into climate and energy politics, its latest contribution to the climate debate simply rehashes what most of us already know.

Based on interviews with former senior politicians and bureaucrats, “Climate Wars” provides no new insights into what could have or should have been done in this train wreck of a policy space over the last three decades. Fronted by the ABC’s Chief Political Correspondent, Michael Brissenden, we are told nothing about the current state of play with regard to Australia’s emissions, or where they are located, or whether any of the policies other than Labor’s price on carbon had any significant impact on those emissions.

Instead, we are presented with a litany of self-serving and self-regarding narratives by Australia’s current and former political and bureaucratic elites, all of whom clearly reveal their inability to abandon their failed policy approaches and provide some way out of the current impasse.

Had the ABC’s Chief Political Correspondent educated himself sufficiently about the relevant policy issues, he may have considered the following facts of the matter.

The largest source of Australia’s emissions continues to be its heavy dependence on fossil fuels for its primary energy needs. But contrary to what most Australians may believe, the country has actually gone backwards in reducing its overall dependence on fossil fuels since Prime Minister Kevin Rudd signed the Kyoto Protocol in December 2007.

According to the Australian Government’s own figures, all forms of energy use contributed 72% of the country’s emissions in 2008. Now that figure is almost 82%. More than 96% of its transport fuels and 78% of its total electricity demand is currently generated from fossil fuels. Furthermore, between 1990 and 2019, it increased its emissions from transport by 64%, electricity generation by 52%, and industrial processes by 34%. Over the same period, the country’s population increased by 48%.

Australia also dominates the global export market for coal and gas and is thus responsible for one of the most carbon-intensive export sectors on earth. Over the last thirty years, Australia’s black coal production increased three-fold and its natural gas production five-fold.

Between the early 1980s and the early 2010s, it was the world’s largest coal exporter. It has not only recently regained that mantle, but overtaken Qatar as the world’s largest exporter of natural gas. Australia also continues to be one of the most polluting nations per capita, and has one of the lowest overall proportions of renewable electricity generation in the OECD. Although Australian politicians often claim that the country’s abundance of fossil fuels provides its citizens with “cheap” energy, Australia has some of the highest electricity and gas prices for non-industrial consumers in the world.

Coalition struggles to push coal and gas into Clean Energy Finance Corp

These facts and figures provide valuable insights into the extent to which Australia’s political, bureaucratic, business and industrial elites have not only failed to deliver any meaningful climate and energy policy over the last three decades but have actually made the problem worse. While ideology is frequently blamed as the motivating factor behind the ‘climate wars’, make no mistake: it isn’t just the conservative political parties who have overseen and supported the policies that brought us here.

The same elites that publicly parade their ‘ideological commitments’ with respect to climate change and energy policy have demonstrated their preparedness to abandon ideology when it suits them to embrace neo-Keynesian economic stimulus measures to ensure that our societies don’t completely collapse while the majority of economic activity is put on hold.

But if any of us had any illusions that the bushfire crisis or even COVID-19 might instigate a sea change in attitudes by Australia’s major political parties with respect to action on climate change, this week’s Four Corners will almost certainly shatter those illusions and put any such hopes firmly to rest.

Rather than exploring the possibility that other policy approaches might have been a more fruitful and productive path to take over the last decade or so, Brissenden gives his interview subjects free rein to repeat the tired mantra that an emissions trading scheme (ETS) is the “least harmful”, economy-wide policy change that can deliver emission reductions at the lowest cost. Former Treasury Secretary Ken Henry opines that “everyone will tell you this”.

Never mind that there’s no empirical evidence to support Henry’s assertion, or the magical claims of other ETS boosters, despite well over ten years of various ETSs operating at various regional levels in many countries. “Don’t you worry about that!” as one of Australia’s greatest political obfuscators used to regularly remind us. That’s the received political wisdom, and anyone who dares to question the “magic bullet” thinking of neoliberal economists and their flunkies in parliament and the bureaucracy is clearly ignorant and deluded. Presumably, because he is of a similar persuasion to his interview subjects, Brissenden cannot bring himself to mention that the second version of Rudd’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme granted the big polluters more than $16 billion in free permits, or that it allowed 100% overseas carbon offsets for those same entities.

Boomers vs Millennials: failure to act on climate is costing Australians their future

Rather than admitting that their policy was a dud, the ALP and most of the senior bureaucrats who are interviewed on the program continue to blame the Australian Greens for refusing to pass an ETS.  For example, we are told by former ALP Climate Change Minister Greg Combet that “nothing was ever good enough” for the Greens: “you had to stop coal-fired electricity tomorrow. 100% renewables today”. Having been personally involved in preparing briefs on these issues for Combet, Ferguson, Wong and others in the ALP at the time, I can confidently state that this is a dishonest misrepresentation of the positions then taken by the Greens and environmental NGOs.

Michael Brissenden. ABC

Brissenden claims that “environmental groups” supported an ETS, although he doesn’t tell us which ones, or that the movement was, and still is, deeply divided on the issue. Nor is he willing to discuss the amendments to the CPRS policy proposed by the Greens.

What Brissenden does clearly demonstrate is that Kevin Rudd, Greg Combet, Penny Wong and former Treasury Secretaries Ken Henry and Martin Parkinson continue to hitch their carts to the ETS horse. Parkinson accuses the Greens of being purists and naïve for refusing to pass Rudd’s CPRS v2.0, but his own fixation upon the supposed merits of emissions trading can just as easily be so accused.

Although emissions trading may be the most technocratic and reductionist approach to climate change policy that’s humanly conceivable, you won’t hear that from any mainstream politician or political commentator in Australia. Focused as it is on molecular risk assessment, all ETSs are complicated and opaque. With literally millions of point sources of GHG pollution that must be continually monitored, they enable abuses at multiple levels. Just take a look at the European ETS, with its massive over-allocation of carbon permits, continual gaming of the system by large players, failure to rein in those abuses in a manner commensurate with their seriousness, and the overall poor performance of the scheme with respect to actual reductions in Europe’s emissions.

A UBS Investment Research report from 2012 argued that the EU ETS cost $287 billion between 2005 and 2011, and had “almost zero impact” on the volume of overall emissions in the EU. The report argued that the same funds could have been used to achieve a greater than 40% reduction in emissions if used in a targeted way.

The real history

In light of the various shortcomings with the Four Corners’ narrative, let me proffer an alternative explanation of how climate change policy has unfolded over the last ten years.

As Minister for Climate Change, Penny Wong was saddled with a dog of a policy but was nevertheless focused on passing an ETS to the almost complete neglect of any other policy levers. No wedges approach. No building blocks approach. No focus on low-carbon R&D or government procurement and energy use as drivers for an energy transition. No discussion of ecological tax reform, abolishing federal subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, or just transitions for coal, gas and oil workers.

No focus on radically improving the energy efficiency of business and industry, one of the lowest cost and easiest means of reducing GHG emissions. No willingness to even entertain the possibility of introducing a commercial feed-in tariff for large-scale renewable energy generation. Granted, some policy measures around some of these issues were discussed and even introduced by Labor, but they utterly failed to follow through or deliver on most of these commitments. Martin Ferguson’s alleged sabotage of the Solar Flagships Program while Minister for Resources and Energy provides a perfect example of how spoilers and moles within the ALP served the interests of the fossil fuel industry, rather than the Australian people.

It would appear that Brissenden and the ALP need to be reminded that it was the Greens and independent MPs Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott who dragged the Labor Government back to the negotiating table after Rudd wimped out on his promise to deliver a sensible policy approach to addressing the “great moral challenge of our generation”. Despite Labor’s efforts to rewrite history and take all the credit for what was undoubtedly a good policy, it was the Greens, Windsor and Oakeshott who helped design, negotiate and deliver the Clean Energy Futures Package under the dogged leadership of Julia Gillard.

Presumably, because they saw the policy as tainted by the input of the Greens and independents, Labor cabinet ministers and backbenchers never firmly got behind their own policy. Embarrassingly, most ALP parliamentarians couldn’t even articulate why or how the party should implement climate change policy. Because Labor politicians failed to educate themselves about the relevant issues and get on the front foot, they let Tony Abbott fill the void by branding the price on carbon a ‘carbon tax’. But a carbon price is not a carbon tax, and nor is it an ETS. Nevertheless, Labor politicians repeatedly allowed Abbott’s ‘brutal retail politics’ to hog centre stage and failed to defend their leader against his unwarranted charges. Meanwhile, the Murdoch Press relentlessly attacked Julia Gillard and tarnished the ALP with the charge that it was beholden to ‘green radicals’.

Ken Henry accurately notes self-interest and personal political ambition as being primary drivers of the inaccurately named ‘Climate Wars’. But neither Henry nor Brissenden acknowledge or note the deep web of personal and professional connections between the fossil fuel and mining industries and senior politicians in the ALP, LNP, Liberals and Nationals. There is no mention in the programme of the revolving door between key industry players and senior advisory positions in government.

Revolving Doors: Australia’s fossil fuel networks

There is no discussion of the golden escalator that rewards compliant senior political operatives for their service to these industries while in public office, or the cushy post-political jobs granted their faithful servants in the very same sectors over which those individuals previously presided. Likewise, Brissenden fails to mention the $3.7 million in traceable donations from the fossil fuel industry to the major political parties between 2013 and 2016, or the additional $1.9 million of traceable donations by the same industry to the same parties in 2018/19, or the more than $1 billion in untraceable donations to the same parties over the last twenty years.

God forbid that we should hear anything about the $90 billion which the major political parties have failed to deliver in resources taxes up to 2018, or the many billions of dollars in income tax revenue which the major political parties continue to negotiate away to Big Coal, Big Oil and Big Gas. Or that there should be any talk of Australians’ rights to be fairly compensated for the fossil resources extracted from our land.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, none of our political leaders or senior bureaucrats are willing to acknowledge these elephants in the room. They simply cannot admit that climate and energy policy in Australia has been completely captured by the fossil fuel industry and that they are no longer in control. If you want to know why we are in such a sorry state, you just have to take a quick look at some of the state and federal politicians who have had their snouts in the trough of fossil fuel industry largesse over the last decade or so. It is indeed a sorry story: Greg Combet, Gary Grey, Craig Emerson and Martin Ferguson from the ALP; Ian Macfarlane, Alexander Downer, Angus Taylor, Melissa Price, Matt Canavan and Adam Giles from the Liberal Party; John Anderson, Larry Anthony, Mark Vaile and Barnaby Joyce from the Nationals.

This is literally the tip of an iceberg upon which we will all be ruined unless we are collectively willing to acknowledge that Australian governance faces deep systemic problems that require wide-ranging democratic reform. Harping on about why past governments failed to pass an ETS just doesn’t cut it.


Revealed: the revolving doors between public servants and fossil fuel lobbyists


Adam Lucas

Adam Lucas

Dr Adam Lucas is a senior lecturer in the Faculty of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences at the University of Wollongong. Adam’s contemporary research focuses on energy policy responses to anthropogenic climate change and obstacles to a sustainable energy transition. He is particularly interested in processes of innovation and the democratization of technological decision-making. Prior to taking up his current position at UoW, he worked for a number of years as a researcher and policy analyst for the New South Wales Government in The Cabinet Office, State and Regional Development, Aboriginal Affairs and Housing. Readers interested in his academic publications can find them here: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Adam_Lucas and here: https://uow.academia.edu/AdamLucas You can follow Adam on Twitter @dradamlucas.


  1. Avatar

    Three gold stars, for stating the bleeding obvious, but totally irrelevant in lofty Ken Henry circles, that there’s no real empirical evidence an ETS works properly, or even that they are designed to reduce emissions effectively. The fake-left narrative that the “Greens spoiled everything” for Rudd-Gillard is now almost impossible to dislodge.

    The logical extension of the EU ETS virus is Net Zero 2050. Once again designed in Europe, as yet another economists’ proxy for endless growth, and once again catnip to the “woke”.

    Hence, instead of being given serious scrutiny, rock-star economist Ross Garnaut’s “Superpower” book has been taken quite at face value in “woke” circles, as the scientifically self-evident route to our glorious “post carbon” world:

    • Avatar

      As you know, Stephen, the frequent repetition of a falsehood doesn’t make it true. If I’m stating the bleeding obvious, why have so many of our peers drunk the Kool Aid? And if noone ever tries to correct the record, noone is ever going to know any better. So clearly it isn’t that obvious to everyone.

      • Avatar

        Forgive poor words, Adam, I meant a huge compliment! I agree, too many are sucked in by “experts” Ken Henry and Ross Garnaut with their “of course”. Do say what you just said, repeatedly.

        As before, I think one reason people drink the Kool Aid, is that they can then go straight back to business as usual, AKA endless growth. For the left, an ETS is also virtue-signalling. As is Net Zero, only more so. It means they don’t have to think about human population, which for them would be racist.

      • Avatar

        No worries, Stephen, thanks for the clarification. On the human population issue, it’s primarily consumption and investment habits of less than 0.1% of the global population that are driving most of the emissions. If you look at country sources of emissions, the countries with highest population growth contribute very little to global emissions. And remember 75% of China’s emissions are embedded in exports to mostly developed countries. We need to start taking embodied carbon in imports and exports seriously, including those embedded in fossil energy sources. I note that the Australian Greenhouse Gas Inventory is calculating these figures now, to their credit, so pressure needs to be brought to bear by citizens to include them in the next round of UNFCCC talks. How they are included needs to be thrashed out through negotiation.

  2. Avatar

    The thesis of this article is absolutely without scientific basis. And ignores the now developing global weather systems associated with a Grand Solar Minimum

    • Avatar

      Peer-reviewed research, physics, and math all tell us that a grand solar minimum would have no more than a 0.3°C cooling effect, barely enough to put a dent in human-caused global warming.

    • Avatar

      Damian, Damian, Damian. What does a troll do to try to sow the seeds of confusion and cast doubt on the claims of those with whom they disagree? The troll accuses opponents of not knowing the facts, about which the troll has a monopoly, and opponents know nothing. Your appeal to the Grand Solar Minimum sounds like another desperate attempt by the troll camp of denialists and confusionists to draw on one wafer thin piece of evidence to overturn the multidisciplinary mountain of evidence for human-induced climate change. Good luck with that one. Which PR company or conspiracist thinktank did you draw it from? I’d be really interested to know. Either way, I’ll engage in a public debate with you about the scientific basis of my claims in this article any time you wish. Bring it on, bud!

  3. Avatar

    Thanks for an well-informed critical deeper view of the trouble in which we find ourselves at present Adam. I wish we could see more such quality journalism. Not to say slightly less corrupt politics.

  4. Avatar

    We see the output locally of well funded political PR and media strategies from the US in delaying and/or avoiding meaningful action on fossil fuel induced climate change:

    It takes a lot to defy common sense on a global scale, all to benefit one industry. But for decades, fossil fuel interests have done just that, running a sophisticated and sprawling network of well-funded think tanks and front groups with one goal: Stop any real climate action, no matter the cost to billions.


    Most nowadays revolves, according to SourceWatch and DeSmog, round the Koch linked Heartland Institute. In fact, one could almost predict tactics in Australia.

  5. Avatar

    Thanks Adam for a wonderful piece: a great amalgam of referenced truth and necessary passion.
    The Four Corners show was crying out for this response.
    I actually believe that Ken Henry’s dismay at our failure is real, but his orthodox economist blnkers limit his view. Whereas Martin Parkinson continuing the lament that “The Greens wrecked everything” was nauseating.
    As for Labor, I don’t like conspiracy theories, but I really do think that the 2009 CPRS fiasco was at the least used opportunistically by Sussex St to shaft The Greens. And my what a dividend that investment has paid!!!
    Great work by you and MWM

  6. Avatar

    Nailed it, Adam. Whenever people think, “I really can’t believe the government….”, they should look to follow the money. Donations, duchessing and revolving doors.

Secret Rich List

Secret Rich List banner

Tax Dodgers

Rortswear by Slush


Case for Federal ICAC

Quad Erat Demonstrandum

Revolving Doors

Revolving Doors

Video Channel

The West Report

Support Us

subscribe to michael west media
Rortswear and ClimateCards
The West Report Banner
Michael West Email

Get Our Weekly Newsletter

Unsubscribe anytime.

Thank you! We'll also confirm via email.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This