Parties warm to climate of hip pocket politics
In a race to prove who has the most pragmatic climate credentials, Labor and the Coalition are at risk of creating the next election’s version of the $275 energy bill saving failed promise. On nuclear energy and vehicle standards – two very different issues – the major parties have adopted strikingly similar arguments.
Whether it’s lifting the ban on nuclear power or accelerating the take-up of electric vehicles, voters are being told if Australia moves now to encourage or invest in new technology, benefits will quickly flow.
Decades of climate wars in Australian politics have taught both parties the path to electoral victory is not arguments on environmental grounds alone.
The impact on consumers must be put front and centre of any debate about the energy transition and efforts to reduce emissions.
In a cost-of-living crisis it is only natural that policies are framed around their hip pocket impact.
It’s the reason the Coalition doesn’t just tell voters Australia should cop the cost of establishing nuclear energy because it believes it’s the best relatively clean source of baseload power to firm up the grid.
Or why Labor can’t just argue for slapping caps on petrol guzzling big emitting cars and utes for the sake of slashing Australia’s CO2 emissions.
Bold environmental policy plays are of secondary concern to households trying to make ends meet.
Electorally this is evident in the divide between wealthier inner-city seats where support is highest for the Greens, more left-leaning Labor MPs, moderate pro-climate action Liberals and, most recently, Teal independents.
Not that climate action lacks uniform support in other parts of the nation, but other priorities are greater.
So to appeal to voters perhaps more focused on their household budgets, the Coalition points to the comparatively lower power bills in places like Ontario, Canada, where about 58 per cent of the city’s electricity comes from nuclear plants.
And Labor highlights potential savings of $1000 to $1800 annually on petrol for motorists once new vehicle standards force manufacturers to offer customers more efficient cars.
Jumping straight to the upside and skipping over the downside has already exposed both sides to the ridicule of their political opponents.
Even if social attitudes towards nuclear energy in Australia have improved enough to explore the option, the Coalition can do little to negate Labor’s arguments that the technology is at best a decade away.
Supposing Coalition energy and climate change spokesman Ted O’Brien can still make the economic case, who knows how many years overcoming the public’s historic aversion to nuclear power plants would add to the build time.
Meanwhile, Labor has no modelling to show Australia, with its unique car market conditions and ambitiously steep emissions cap, will be able to keep a lid on the upfront costs of more efficient cars.
The fuel savings touted by Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen could well be eaten up by the higher capital cost of vehicles. Manufacturers such as Toyota publicly warn Labor’s plan “unfairly penalises” the vehicles that rural and regional people require.
His claim the costs haven’t gone up in overseas markets completely overlooks the massive subsidies – up to $US7000 in America – and other incentives to increase demand for EVs – efforts manufacturers say are not working fast enough.
Essentially neither of these moves is as low-risk and high-reward as its proponents would have us believe.
At the same time, each side is politically delighted at the battleground chosen by the other in the 12-month run-up to the election.
Anthony Albanese told reporters last week he “looked forward” to Opposition Leader Peter Dutton announcing the proposed location of nuclear power plants in Australia.
And Mr Dutton wasted no time in branding the proposed new vehicle emissions standards the PM’s new “family car and ute tax”.
Poll after poll has shown most Australians want serious action to tackle climate change, but many baulk when it comes to the cost and who should ultimately pay.
It is through this prism that Labor bent over backwards to derive a dollar figure for consumers on its climate and energy policies – thus the disastrous “$275 saving by 2025” pledge.
That blunder alone should be a cautionary tale for any leader seeking to put a figure on how going green can save households money.
Sometimes it’s better to make the case for why something should be done and be upfront about the costs.