[Theme Music Starts]

RUBY:

From Schwartz Media, I’m Ruby Jones. This is 7am.

Australia’s climate future is again hanging in the balance.

And once more, it could all depend on a Labor government negotiating with the Greens.

As it stands, they’re at loggerheads. The Greens want no new coal and gas developments to be approved, the Government are accusing the Greens of being unrealistic.

But should the Greens be expected to pass whatever Labor is proposing? And where’s the science in all of this?

Today, contributing editor of The Politics, Rachel Withers on the impossible choice facing the Greens.

It’s Friday, March 10.

[Theme Music Ends]

RUBY:

So Rachel, the Albanese Government has been promising to bring down emissions quickly enough to meet the Paris targets. And last month the Government finally introduced a key policy that it says is going to get us there and that is its Safeguard Mechanism Bill. So to begin with. Can you just tell me a bit about the safeguard mechanism, what it actually is?

RACHEL:

Yeah. So the bill is central to Labor's plan to reduce emissions by 43% on 2005 levels by the end of this decade. And what Labor's bill actually does is tighten the existing safeguard mechanism and make it actually work by requiring the nation's 215 biggest polluters to reduce their emissions by 4.9% each year, either by actually reducing their emissions or by offsetting their emissions by buying what's known as carbon credits. So these changes have the support of the business community, but some experts have some issues with how it works because it allows for unlimited offsets, even though there are a lot of questions surrounding the integrity of carbon credits. And it also does nothing to stop new fossil fuel projects coming online, even though some modelling suggests that this could blow the carbon budget we've set for ourselves. The Coalition has decided to oppose Labor's changes, even though it's actually their mechanism we're talking about here. So Labor needs the Greens and at least two other senators to pass the bill in the Senate. The Greens have asked the Government to commit to no new coal and gas projects before they vote for it, and they're calling it an offer, not an ultimatum. But it's looking more and more like they're going to hold their ground and demand something from Labor here. So there is a real standoff developing here between the two parties and it's likely to set the stage for their future and for the future of the climate.

RUBY:

And there's obviously history here when it comes to Labor and the Greens and negotiations going badly when it comes to climate. And a lot is being made of that history right now, isn't it?

RACHEL:

Yeah, there's one particular incident in 2009 that gets brought up a lot, which is the debate around the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, which was the Rudd Government's policy to bring down emissions.

Archival tape -- Kevin Rudd:

“Today I announce one of the largest and most important structural reforms to our economy in a generation. The introduction of a carbon pollution reduction scheme.”

RACHEL:

It was a cap and trade emissions scheme.

Archival tape -- Kevin Rudd:

“We’ll put a cost and a charge on carbon pollution, which will encourage major polluting businesses to lower their emissions. The funds generated from this charge will be used to help industries that pollute lower their future emissions.”

RACHEL:

And the Greens had a range of issues with that policy too...

Archival tape -- Bob Brown:

“I know the Prime Minister has said that we must act for our children and our grandchildren, but the question is do we act according to the world's brains trust, or do we act according to the pressure of the big polluters?”

RACHEL:

…and they voted against it in the Senate, which forced the Labor government to ultimately shelve the bill.

Archival tape -- Bob Brown:

“And when the opposition got into the negotiating room with the government, it went even further in the direction of the big polluters against the interests of the children and grandchildren that the Prime Minister was talking about.”

RACHEL:

The Gillard Government later managed to pass a much stronger policy with the support of the Greens. That actually gets forgotten about in this debate. But Labor holds the Greens responsible for the fact that this 2009 policy failed. So over the years Labor has worked to spin that debacle as a Greens blunder rather than as any kind of miscalculation on their part, and they used it as a bit of a bludgeon to get their way last year on the 43% emissions reduction target, which the Greens didn't think was high enough. But Labor demanded they accept the target or take the blame for the fact we wouldn't have a target. So Labor now insists that it has a mandate for the safeguard mechanism and that the Greens have to respect that even though the policy is full of holes.

RUBY:

Okay, well let's talk a bit more about what the Greens case then is for not supporting the safeguard mechanism. It sounds like their argument at its core, it comes down to the fact that without a ban on new coal and gas projects, the mechanism is essentially pointless. I mean, are they right about that?

RACHEL:

So the Greens have now sort of offered a dissenting opinion on the Senate inquiry into the bill, saying that it will fail unless the government amends it so that there will be no new coal and gas projects. And that's another issue that David Pocock - the independent Senator whose vote the government also needs - that's another huge issue for him.

Archival tape -- Sen. David Pocock:

“We'll likely hear that a hierarchy of mitigation is assumed in the legislation, but there is nothing explicit to ensure that we are avoiding emissions, we're reducing emissions..”

RACHEL:

The Greens are demanding to see the Government's modelling, which is forecasting how big industrial emitters would use carbon credits to meet their obligations and how much they would actually be abating emissions versus just offsetting them by buying carbon credits. So the Greens and the Coalition have teamed up in the Senate to pass a motion demanding that the Government release its modelling.

Archival tape -- Sen. Jonathon Duniam:

“For what it's worth in terms of the Coalition, our view is that the proposal that has been put forward that is referenced in the motion here in broad terms is one that we haven't properly seen assessed in terms of its impact…”

RACHEL:

But it looks like Labor is going to stand firm on not releasing it, claiming public interest immunity. It's still not clear if this is a red line for the Greens, but we're still seeing Greens leader Adam Bandt say things like “we haven't had a satisfactory answer from the Government as to why we have to have new coal and gas.”

Archival tape -- Adam Bandt:

“We would consider any proposals in good faith that are put on the table to deal with this question of coal and gas. We want to pass laws that will see pollution from coal and gas come down in this country, and that's ultimately the test for us of a good climate policy…”

RACHEL:

It's not exactly an outlandish position from the Greens. Climate scientists and the United Nations and the International Energy Agency all say that there can be no new fossil fuel projects if we are to stay within safe levels of global heating.

Archival tape -- Adam Bandt:

“Pollution from coal and gas has to start coming down. We want to vote for laws that will see coal and gas pollution come down in this country, not go up, because you can't put the fire out while you pour in petrol on it. And the Government's desire to open up new coal and gas projects is the sticking point for us at the moment…”

RACHEL:

And there is some worrying modelling around which shows that emissions from just 16 proposed new coal and gas projects is equal to one quarter of the overall emissions reduction that the safeguard mechanism is supposed to achieve this decade. So there's fears that any new coal and gas projects could blow this budget that we've set for ourselves. So yeah, we really do have some big questions around Labor's plan and whether the safeguard mechanism reforms will actually do what they need to do to bring down emissions according to what science demands.

RUBY:

We'll be back after this.

[Advertisement]

RUBY:

So, Rachel, the safeguard mechanism, I mean, it's eventually going to come down to a Senate vote. And while it seems like both the Greens and Labor are standing by their positions at the moment, you would think that some kind of bill will pass eventually. So for that to happen, who is more likely to bend on this? Would it be Labor or the Greens?

RACHEL:

Well, we really don't know what's going on behind closed doors at the moment, although Climate and Energy Minister Chris Bowen insists that his private position is the same as his public one, and it seems that that is that Labor is unwilling to budge, especially on coal and gas.

Archival tape -- Patricia Karvelas (ABC):

“Last time we spoke, I asked you a question and a lot of my listeners were concerned that you didn't answer it. So I'm going to ask it again in this interview. It's like an ongoing conversation we're having. Why do we need new coal and gas?”

Archival tape -- Chris Bowen:

“Well, what we need is a sensible-...saying ‘no new coal and gas’ is frankly a slogan, not a policy. What we need is a sensible transition…”

RACHEL:

Speaking on RN Breakfast this week, Bowen said it would be irresponsible to have a blanket ban on new coal and gas projects.

Archival tape -- Chris Bowen:

“It would be irresponsible to put some sort of blanket ban on as we are undertaking this massive transition coming after ten years of denial and delay starting in 2022 to get a 2030 target. Yes, it's ambitious. And difficult. And complicated. We will do it.”

RACHEL:

When he was asked what he would be willing to give in negotiations, Bowen insisted that Labor had a clear mandate and that the Greens were right not to be making ultimatums.

Archival tape -- Chris Bowen:

“The opportunity before the Parliament over the coming weeks is either to seize the opportunity to reduce emissions by 205 million tonnes, or to squander it. That's what the Parliament has the opportunity to decide in coming weeks. Now I'm confident that the Parliament will seize that opportunity because the stakes are too high…”

RACHEL:

But how high can those stakes really be if Labor is willing to squander the chance to reduce emissions in line with what the science demands.

RUBY:

And over the last few days then, as this has all played out between Labor and the Greens how have we seen this standoff framed in the media? What is the popular narrative, around the tension over this bill?

RACHEL:

So even though the Greens’ position is kind of backed by the scientific consensus, it seems like the public debate in this area has been framed entirely around the politics of it all. So questions have turned to whether the Greens are going to once again let perfect be the enemy of the good. Adam Bandt has been repeatedly asked whether the Greens would oppose the bill if they don't get their way. With the implication being that they're expected to roll over if or when Labor says no to their demands. And the Greens are apparently expected to take what they can get in this space. With Labor seemingly not expected to give it all. Even though neither party actually has a majority in the Senate.

RUBY:

I mean, what are the consequences for the Greens either way on this? Because it does seem sort of, as you say, that they're the ones that have more to lose here because if they hold out, they're going to be portrayed as sabotaging the government's climate policy once again. But if they do end up kind of caving on this, then surely those who voted for them are not going to be happy about that.

RACHEL:

Yeah, it's a real difficult situation for the Greens. Labor seems to think that the Greens will be the ones held accountable if this doesn't pass. After all, they've spent 14 years blaming them for what happened in 2009, arguing that they let perfect be the enemy of the good and that they are just a party of protest. A lot of the media has backed that position over the years and there is this argument now that the Greens need to fall into line and take what they can get. But it does seem as if the public mood has shifted a little bit here. We saw a massive climate election last year with Greens and climate focussed independents picking up a number of seats. We've got some polling this week showing that voters in the ACT would much rather that the Senate improved the bill rather than just waved it through. And so yeah, it does seem like it could be a slightly different outcome here in terms of the public perception of who's to blame if a bill doesn't pass. Labor has this mandate to enact a climate policy to do something to bring down emissions. And arguably, if they're trying to push through a bill that isn't going to do what's actually required, are they fulfilling their mandate? And so the question is who's to blame if this doesn't go through? But who's to blame for us not having a policy that actually brings down emissions?

RUBY:

Yeah, I mean, that's a good point, because however this goes, it does sort of reveal that very often what we focus on when we talk about politics is the stakes. You know, who wins, who loses, who caves, and there can't be any starker example of that in Australian politics than when it comes to the climate crisis.

RACHEL:

Yeah. And so much of the media really has treated this like a game. But when I look at this issue and I think when a lot of voters look at these issues, it's who is actually in the right here, who is actually pushing for the policy that is what we need, not what is politically palatable.

RUBY:

Right, and so how do you think this is likely to play out from now on Rachel, and when - if at all - do you think we will see some sort of breakthrough moment?

RACHEL:

The vote on the mechanism won't be for another couple of weeks. We've got two sitting weeks from March 20 and the government is hoping to use those two sitting weeks to get this done. Labor's going to have no problem getting this through the House where they've got a majority, although the teal independents do have some issues with the bill as well. But it's when it comes to the Senate that we're going to see what happens and whether Labor plans to move at all in order to win the support of the Greens or whether the Greens are going to roll over if they don't get what they want.

RUBY:

Rachel, thank you so much for your time.

RACHEL:

Thanks Ruby.

[Advertisement]

[Theme Music Starts]

RUBY:

Also in the news today,

More text messages have emerged in the lawsuit against Fox News, with new revelations around how popular host Tucker Carlson promoted the lie that the US election was stolen from Donald Trump.

On-air, Carlson is one of Trump’s biggest supporters. But in one text exchange, which took place two days before the Capitol Riot, Carlson said that he quote ‘hates him passionately’.

This week, the White House has condemned Carlson over his continued coverage of Capital Riot, calling it ‘not credible’.

And

Smoke from the black summer bushfires in 2019-2020 thinned the ozone layer by almost five per cent.

The new study published in the journal Nature, says the fires ejected nine hundred thousand tonnes of smoke into the stratosphere, reaching so high that the particles interfered with the ozone layer’s ability to absorb ultraviolet rays from the sun.

Scientists say the damage will take a decade to repair, and that it’s a warning sign as man-made climate change makes severe bushfires more likely.

7am is a daily show from The Monthly and The Saturday Paper.

It’s produced by Kara Jensen-Mackinnon, Zoltan Fecso, and Cheyne Anderson.

Our technical producer is Atticus Bastow. Our editor is Scott Mitchell.

Sarah McVeigh is our Head of Audio, and Erik Jensen is our editor-in-chief.

Mixing this week by Laura Hancock and Atticus Bastow

Our theme music is by Ned Beckley and Josh Hogan of Envelope Audio.

I’m Ruby Jones, see you next week.

[Theme Music Ends]