Op-ed in 'The Australian': Locking climate targets into law to provide certainty
"Perhaps not surprisingly, the member for Goldstein, in his opinion piece on this page on Tuesday, wants to sow the seeds of confusion and fear about my climate policy, and to have you believe the Morrison-Joyce government has it covered when it comes to real action on climate change. The truth is Tim Wilson is out of step with science, business and the broader community.
The Climate Change Bill I propose sets up an internationally proven legislative framework to guide the economy to net-zero emissions by 2050."
Read Zali Steggall's op-ed in 'The Australian'.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the member for Goldstein, in his opinion piece on this page on Tuesday, wants to sow the seeds of confusion and fear about my climate policy, and to have you believe the Morrison-Joyce government has it covered when it comes to real action on climate change. The truth is Tim Wilson is out of step with science, business and the broader community.
The Climate Change Bill I propose sets up an internationally proven legislative framework to guide the economy to net-zero emissions by 2050.
Britain has had this kind of law in effect since 2008. In part due to the law, emissions in Britain fell by 26 per cent between 2016 and 2019. By legislating, it has kept several UK governments focused through the global financial crisis, Brexit and the pandemic. They are now on track for 68 per cent emissions reduction by 2030, while growing their economy – an achievement which has been extolled by the OECD.
As a result, Ireland, Germany, New Zealand, Mexico and France, to name a few, have followed suit with their own climate laws. This is all while Australia has been completely lost at sea.
Through my Climate Change Bill, which enshrines in law net zero by 2050, we can prevent backsliding. We saw last week a Coalition war erupt over the goal of net zero by 2050, with the Nationals trying to walk it back, saying there is “wiggle room” in meeting the target. There is no wiggle room. If we fail to reach net zero, Deloitte Access Economics has modelled we could be hit by up to $3.4 trillion in economic losses over the next few decades.
Australia needs the certainty of locking our target in law to keep politicians and government focused on meeting the important goal.
Like any serious national issue, such as national security, the environment and the economy, parliaments legislate to promote effective action. Climate policy is no different.
Locking our targets into law will provide investment certainty. IFM Investors, the largest infrastructure manager in Australia, said this about the bill: “For long-term investors, the adoption by parliament of such a framework could provide more certainty about emission-reduction trajectories and sectoral pathways in Australia, underpinning investor confidence and accelerating the flow of private capital into low-emissions technology and infrastructure.”
By not backing this bill, it is the Coalition and Wilson who are failing to provide a hospitable investment environment, and capital is going overseas, seeking jurisdictions with forward-looking climate policies. Because of the UK’s Climate Act and underpinning policies, Nissan has had the confidence to pour £1bn ($1.76bn) into electric vehicle manufacturing there. One must ask, what are we missing out on?
Another question for Wilson is why is he so out of step with the business community? My Climate Change Bill has the backing of the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Industry Group. The BCA said this about the bill: “The policy framework in the legislation provides an architecture which will be critical to mapping out a planned and predictable approach to emissions reduction across the economy.”
The AIG said it is a “must”.
Yes, the bill will set up a climate commission to review policies. But it does not do as Wilson claims. It does not set targets for the government nor does it usurp democracy. It provides advice, just like the National Skills Commission – established under this government – does for our workforce policy.
We absolutely need a commission to depoliticise the debate that often gets mired in which technology will get us there or what the targets should be. The commission will simply recommend targets based on the best available science. Professor Mark Bowden, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report co-author, said the bill is “aligned with the current science”.
When did Wilson become anti-science? The Liberals once stood for our institutions. Because of their anti-science stance in Australia, we still have Tony Abbott’s 2030 target, which is incompatible with keeping warming to 1.5°C. Indeed, the IPCC has warned countries that current 2030 targets will ensure we hit 3.2°C of warming this century. This will devastate our economy and environment, which is already reeling from the impacts of fires and floods.
Last year, Wilson and the Liberals, standing beside the Nationals, voted against debating my Climate Change Bill. Before they vote on May 21, the electors of Goldstein as well as Kooyong, Wentworth, North Sydney and Mackellar should be asking, why? And would an independent better represent them on the single biggest issue facing our country?
Zali Steggall is the independent member for Warringah.
Do you like this page?