Labor’s hypocritical response to the climate crisis is a sad joke on us all

The implicit question at the heart of every intergenerational report has always been: “How will we care for older generations in the future?” This hasn’t changed, and won’t for as long as the older demographic remains a key battleground in the fortunes of the major political parties.

The whole “intergenerational” exercise is a rhetorical device to reframe serious concerns about Australia’s future into questions about sustainable levels of wealth and welfare for (not all) boomers. (Hint: there’s no such thing as too much financial security.) 

Nevertheless, it’s hard to think of a more hypocritical time in Australian politics than the present. As Treasurer Jim Chalmers addressed the media this week about the 2023 intergenerational report, he evinced concern for the economic impact of the climate crisis, noting that it could total up to $423 billion over the next 40 years.

Never mind the fact that the Albanese government continues to invest taxpayer money in new gas production facilities for the Beetaloo Basin, keeps approving new fossil-fuel ventures, and annually allocates more than $10 billion in fossil-fuel subsidies. An International Monetary Fund report released yesterday found that the true cost of these subsidies — when taking into account the associated environmental and health costs from polluters — is more like $65 billion a year, or 2.5% of GDP.

Basic economic theory would suggest that if you wish to avoid future economic damages caused by fossil-fuel burning, then you stop fossil-fuel burning. But in this country, already the third-largest exporter of fossil fuels in the world, we spruik our massive and growing gas resources to overseas buyers, and try to keep the coal industry afloat for as long as possible by extending the life of its mines and coal-fired power stations.

It takes a metric shit-tonne of cognitive dissonance to believe that our gas and coal aren’t going to cause climate chaos in Australia, so that’s apparently what we invest in now: we call these investments “carbon credits”.

While ministers Chris Bowen and Tanya Plibersek launch a thousand happy memes about saving koalas, net-zero goals and our renewable energy revolution, large-scale renewables project development is stalling around Australia. Over the past six months, the number of renewables projects reaching sign-off roughly equals the number of new coal and gas projects approved by the federal government.

Our “new” climate policy, for those who have shut their eyes to such things since the arrival of the Albanese government, requires no actual emissions cuts from any actual polluter. That’s why the safeguard mechanism is so popular with the dirtiest industries. Instead of cutting emissions, they only need to purchase “offsets”, be they generated from trees that were never cut down or never grown.

This sleight of hand, like the mythical “carbon capture and storage” shell game, is what comes to characterise your policy platform when your independent advisory, the Climate Change Authority, is chaired by a former gas executive who also chairs the largest carbon offset developer in the country.

Many companies that make up the list of the safeguard mechanism’s “covered facilities”, such as Woodside, have already purchased all the offsets they need to avoid cutting real emissions. (Reminder: the big gas companies are extracting these fossil fuels primarily for export, for which the consequent emissions aren’t even counted by Australia.)

Our political leaders, copying the old Peter Costello intergenerational-sad-face playbook word for word, have spent the week earnestly staring into news cameras warning about the pressure on our long-term budgets. And they’re right, of course: JobSeeker rates are way below poverty levels; the cost of properly funding the NDIS and aged care is increasing; there is a housing crisis; state schools and universities are haemorrhaging; and the cost of species and land conservation, emergency services, public liability insurance, infrastructure and emergency services is set to balloon. 

So what will they do about it? Similar to the Howard government, the Albanese government will push ahead with blowing a $313 billion hole (over just 10 years) in these fragile budgets by giving tax cuts to the wealthiest. No wonder social services spending is going to be tight.

In a time of rampant inequality and overlapping cost-of-living crises, we see corporate profits rising precipitously for Woolworths, Coles, Qantas, the big banks and the fossil-fuel companies. And yet, just days after his party conference passed a resolution to look at corporate tax reform, Chalmers ruled out corporate tax reform.

There is no sign yet of any long-term agenda from the Albanese government. Nothing to shift the dial on intergenerational or other forms of wealth inequality, or on housing shortages, corporate profiteering, multinational tax avoidance, or defence overspending — just a mountain of words and promises of more reviews. 

Its timidity is a sad joke on us all. Sure, it’s not the Morrison government, but that’s the lowest bar. It’s a government that was voted in to do things differently, yet has become mindlessly committed to delivering what’s fundamentally the same Liberal/neoliberal program in spite of the evidence underpinning what’s required.

Minor tweaks notwithstanding. Facing the current opposition and the current media, “don’t scare the horses” could win you a good decade of doing nothing much. Albanese is a genius tactician, and he’s figured it all out. 

Were the government genuinely concerned about the economic cost of climate change, it would also acknowledge that it’s probably delusional to think that a 3-degree hotter world (our current path) will bring an impost of only 0.5% of GDP.

The world as Labor knows it won’t exist at these temperatures. Sea-level rises will overwhelm our highly concentrated coastlines; fires, flood and cyclones will upend the insurance industry and billions of lives; drought will bring widespread global crop failures; water will be at a premium; migration will become unstoppable; diseases, health costs… Spare a dollar? But hell, those eight submarines will be crucial. 

It’s a shame that “duty of care” remains a principle that governments refuse to apply to younger generations. We should remember that at the next election, when Labor MPs, relaxed and comfortable, pose in campaign materials with their kids. 

What’s the point of an intergenerational report when future generations face a burning planet? Let us know by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.