[Theme Music Starts]

ANGE:

From Schwartz Media, I’m Ange McCormack. This is 7am.

Australia’s record on climate action puts us well behind other countries.

But, at a global summit in New York last month, you’d be forgiven for thinking Australia was a climate leader, after being praised for partnering with a small pacific nation facing the worst consequences of climate change.

So, how do our climate representatives manage to sell Australia as an environmental leader, while opening up new fossil fuel projects back home?

Today, Director of the Australia Institute's Climate & Energy program and contributor to The Saturday Paper, Polly Hemming, on how Australia’s style of climate negotiating is distracting the world from our climate truths.

It’s Thursday, October 19th.

[Theme Music Ends]

ANGE:

Polly, you were recently in New York for a really big U.N. climate conference. Can you tell me a bit about what these events are actually like? What happens, who goes, that kind of thing?

POLLY:

There was actually a culmination of events in New York during that week, which is is deliberate. So you've got New York Climate Week, which is kind of like a private sector celebration of all the things the private sector is doing on climate. And then to coincide with that, there was also a United Nations Climate Ambition summit.

Audio excerpt – Reporter 1:

“This is Climate Week in New York. Thousands of climate protesters filled Manhattan yesterday. They're demanding meaningful change to combat greenhouse gas emissions.”

Audio excerpt – Reporter 2:

“So climate change activists are taking the opportunity to get their message across to world leaders.”

Audio excerpt – Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:

“to protect the planet, the people, and make sure that we end fossil fuels across the globe.”

POLLY:

And then there's this real celebratory element. You have lots of mingling and hobnobbing and cross-pollination between everyone who is here for all these events. These are people who have kind of known each other for a long time. They're greeting each other like old friends. I wasn't with the Australian delegation or with the people from private sector from Australia, but in various locations you'd see people that you knew back in Australia that were working for the Federal Government or who previously had worked for the Federal Government. Watching them work the room and talk to people was really interesting because, I mean, diplomats are really likeable people, right? You don't send your most anti-social, least likeable people in to negotiate with other countries.

But I also have a particular insight into our climate policies and the way our climate policies are negotiated. A former U.N. negotiator literally said to me laughingly, “Oh yeah, Australians are great. But it's not until it's too late, you realise they totally fucked you over". There's this kind of real paradox where they know that Australia has fought for some really egregious things in international climate negotiations. Yet they still, at a personal level, really like them, and it's because they've spent hours and hours in rooms together with these people going out, drinking with them afterwards. So there is a kind of a deep affection, even though at that higher academic level, they know that they have kind of gamed the system. I think it's kind of what happens behind the negotiation doors stays behind the negotiation doors.

ANGE:

And can you tell me a bit more about the UN Climate Ambition Summit? How did Australia perform there and how were they received?

POLLY:

So in the run up to the summit, about 100 heads of state had written to the secretary general, basically putting forward their case as to why they should be given a speaking spot at this summit. And the criteria for countries to be considered was that you well, you have to show climate ambition, but that was things like presenting an updated climate target, showing kind of a concrete energy transition plan, committing more climate finance. And Australia, it ultimately wasn't given a speaking spot. Which is kind of telling, I think. But then at the same time, later in the day, there were other sessions where countries, even those unambitious countries, were given an opportunity to kind of put something forward demonstrating climate ambition. And this is where Foreign Affairs Minister Penny Wong announced that Australia would be partnering with the small island state of Tuvalu on its long term adaptation plan.

Audio excerpt – Penny Wong:

“Australia is privileged to partner with the government of Tuvalu to advance their long term adaptation project or LTAP under the Adaptation Pipeline Accelerator Initiative. And we do this because we are family.”

POLLY:

It's a collection of small island atolls, very low lying, and it is already, well, essentially being consumed by rising sea levels. Finance Minister Seve Paeniu said that at high tide 40% of the main island is completely submerged. So it is being consumed now. You know, there's food supply issues, there's fresh water issues. There's “am I under water?” issues right now. And while it's telling that Australia wasn't given a speaking spot at the keynote. Ultimately, its announcement around adaptation was recognised and somehow considered to be a commendable achievement. Which is interesting because honestly, it was entirely underwhelming.

ANGE:

Can you explain why it was so underwhelming? Because, you know, on the face of it, you know, Australia goes to this summit, commits to helping one of our Pacific neighbours in Tuvalu. It kind of sounds like a good thing, and it was praised as being a good thing. Why did you find it underwhelming? Why did it seem so rudimentary?

POLLY:

Tuvalu's long term adaptation plan is not a new project. I mean, it's a really quite incredible concept was something that Tuvalu announced last year and it's basically building up the the entire main island. So it's at a safe level above sea level. And there's elements around it of fresh water and food production and things like that. And what Australia did is nothing new. They basically kind of have hitched their wagon to this plan. And Senator Penny Wong thanked Minister Paeniu and then said, “We're really proud to partner with Tuvalu, we're doing this because we're family.” And then just proceeded to give no detail of how it was going to be involved in what is not a new initiative.

Minister Wong said, “Oh, we're in preparatory talks. This is an initial stage. We're doing early work to open the doors of finance. We're looking forward to taking this forward.” There was no detail attached to it, which is why I kind of somewhat cynically say it seemed very last minute.

To be absolutely clear, financing and supporting any kind of climate adaptation is critical, particularly for Pacific countries, and Tuvalu is one of those that is most at risk. And what is really heartbreaking is Minister Paeniu basically acknowledged this.

Audio excerpt – Seve Paeniu:

“For Tuvalu, it is almost certainly too late. Over the past decades, climate and sea level science has not delivered anything but bad news for us.”

POLLY:

But to be clear, if Australia really wanted to help or was was going to be credible in this area, we'd probably stop doing the thing causing the problem in the first place. And we'd also probably give finance that was commensurate with what we owed and our impact on climate change and what's required. So even if you take this announcement at face value, it's wholly inadequate because there was no detail around it, there was no money attached. When you look at it in context of what else Australia is doing, you can see that it is just another tactic or breadcrumb, if you like, of the way Australia controls the narrative and tries to distract from. It's enormous fossil fuel expansion and what's really going on.

ANGE:

After the break, how Australia keeps the world distracted from what we’re really up to.

[Advertisement]

ANGE:

So, Polly, this announcement that Australia made, you said it lacked detail. It was kind of a last minute plan, which makes it seem like it was made to distract from what Australia is doing. Do you think that's the case? And if so, what was Australia trying to distract people from?

POLLY:

What Australia is trying to distract from ultimately is that it is the world's third largest fossil fuel exporter, that we give $11 billion in subsidies to fossil fuels every year, that we are not transitioning away from fossil fuels, we're transitioning into them. When the science says that that is the opposite of what needs to happen. We have no plans to stop. And we have massive expansion planned. And we have been asked explicitly by Pacific leaders to stop digging up and exporting fossil fuels. And this year alone, Australia rejected a proposal that was conceived and championed by Pacific Island nations about trying to reduce emissions from shipping.

But a really good way to distract everyone from that is to not even talk about it and to make the conversation about something else. So we do that in Australia with our domestic policy. We say Australia is going to be a renewable energy superpower. We're going to be exporting hydrogen and and clean energy to the rest of the world. We just leave out the part where that is in addition to gas and coal.

And Minister Wong was intercepted by CNN as she was going into the UN and she was asked about Australia's massive coal expansion. And her answer was about Australia's domestic renewable energy.

Audio excerpt – Penny Wong:

“So, you know, we have a very ambitious set of targets. We will be by 2030 in excess of 80% renewable energy. When we came to government...”

POLLY:

The question actually wasn't about that. But you twist the whole conversation to be about the way Australia is reducing its domestic emissions, and that's another way of kind of distracting everyone and changing the parameters of the conversation.

ANGE:

Polly, it sounds like you're describing a pattern with how Australia generally approaches these types of negotiations on climate. Can you tell me a bit more about where we've seen these strategies play out before?

POLLY:

So I don't want to go back too far, but during negotiations for the Kyoto Protocol, which is this major climate treaty. Australia basically pursued this mantra of common but differentiated responsibilities. And what that means is that every country is different. You know, some countries need special treatment. And ultimately, Australia is one of the few countries that somehow managed to negotiate an increase in its emissions by 108%. We also negotiated another loophole called the Australia Clause, which allowed us to retrospectively count emissions reductions from not cutting down trees anymore. So basically we negotiated so much headroom that we were always going to stand that we got credits for not emitting and we were able to use that to carry over into the second Kyoto period. So yes, we have a really long history of gaming these negotiations.

ANGE:

And partly the climate crisis is obviously an emergency. How long can Australia realistically continue this strategy? You're talking about, you know, this charm offensive doing distracting policy announcements and showing up to these climate talks and actually being praised for announcements made there before the rest of the world sees through it and sees what's going on behind the scenes.

POLLY:

I think actually Australia is currently pivoting from a charm offensive because it is realising that time is running out and it's wearing thin and it's moving from, you know, those fluffy policy announcements to something that resembles kind of a furrowed brow national security argument. If you look at recent joint statements by the Japanese government and Australia, and that something that Australia's just released called a future gas strategy. You can see that that the narrative is pivoted to, we need to keep producing fossil fuels to ensure security in this region, to keep peace in this region. If we stopped selling our gas to Japan, it would be the equivalent of announcing World War Three.

What needs to happen is that we need to stop digging up fossil fuels and we need to stop burning fossil fuels. We will know Australia is serious on climate change when it sets a date for the last coal mine, when it sets a date for the last gas project. We have none of that now. All we have is scare campaigns about, “oh, we can't, we can't stop burning gas overnight.” No one is suggesting that. But if you are in line with the International Energy Agency, the United Nations, the countries that you say are our family. Then tell us when you are going to stop approving new gas and coal projects. That's when we'll know Australia is serious.

ANGE:

Polly, thanks so much for your time today.

POLLY:

Oh, thank you.

[Advertisement]

[Theme Music Starts]

ANGE:

Also in the news today,

US President Joe Biden has promised an investigation into the bombing of a hospital in Gaza yesterday, which resulted in the killing of hundreds of civilians.

The attack, which Hamas and Israel have blamed on each other, was condemned by world leaders including Anthony Albanese, who said “every innocent life matters”.

And

X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, will begin charging users an annual fee of one US dollar.

The payment model is being trialed among new users in New Zealand and the Philippines, and is designed to fight the use of bots, according to X’s owner, Elon Musk.

I’m Ange McCormack, this is 7am. We’ll be back again tomorrow.

[Theme Music Ends]