Peter Dutton’s nuclear politics of distraction and the government’s ongoing approvals for new fossil fuel projects are dangerous for the climate – and the economy. David McEwen with the solutions.
With time running dangerously short to rein in emissions and both major parties serving up billions for billionaires, there are nation transforming opportunities that could provide millions of good jobs, and hope for a better future.
The world has sweated through at least 11 consecutive months above 1.5 degrees and recorded its first full year above that limit, bringing unprecedented extreme weather to every continent. Climate impacts don’t worsen incrementally: what we experience between 1.5 and 2 degrees will be significantly more calamitous than the destruction and suffering we’ve seen with the last half degree of change.
What’s more, global average temperatures will only stabilise if we collectively reach zero emissions in a way that is meaningful to the physical climate system, rather than what it says on a government spreadsheet. Forget “returning to normal” in anyone’s lifetime: every decade for the foreseeable future will be hotter, more tempestuous, less insurable, and much less supportive of our current way of life.
Understandably, this news is taking its toll on mental health, particularly amongst young people who will never experience a relatively stable and benevolent climate.
In the face of this, what do politicians of both major stripes continue to serve up?
Billions for billionaires
In the red corner, we have Labor’s “Future Made in Australia.” This will see substantial sums of public money supporting the development of critical minerals and green hydrogen, in the hopes of giving Australia an economic advantage as the world transitions away from fossil fuels.
The Federal opposition immediately branded the package using the catchier and not entirely inaccurate slogan “billions for billionaires”. The types of projects being supported are extremely capital intensive, will create relatively few ongoing jobs, and will inevitably be spearheaded by some of Australia’s richest people.
Meanwhile in the blue corner is the Coalition’s plan for nuclear power. Prima facie it’s a distract and delay strategy to boost the prospects of fossil donors, and the promised multi-year consultation period would probably be the last we’d hear of it should the Coalition be returned to power at the next election.
It’s also another example of billions for billionaires: nuclear is not exactly a cottage industry so big business would be lining up to take public handouts to build and run the plants and waste facilities. Nuclear power also reinforces a highly centralised, linear flow of electrons that characterised 20th century grids, rather than the democratised, bidirectional flow we’ve been getting used to over the past couple of decades.
Both FMIA and nuclear are emblematic of the major parties’ vacuous go-to slogan “jobs and growth.” Extractive capitalism supporting an ever growing population is unsustainable on our finite and imperilled planet. But jobs are important. It is well known that meaningful work is vital to individuals’ self esteem, and critical to a fulfilling life.
Electrifying everything – the jobs bonanza
Sadly missing from the Budget was funding for electrification and energy efficiency. The National Energy Performance (aka efficiency) Strategy turned out to be a damp squib. There was nothing new for efficiency and electrification beyond the $1 billion in concessional finance and $300 million towards social housing announced in 2022.
Call it $50 per capita. In contrast, Ireland’s government is spending EUR 8 billion – around A$1,600 per capita – on its National Retrofitting Scheme.
The switch to renewable electricity (which did get a budget nod) and the electrification/efficiency of everything could collectively deliver up to 90% of energy-related emissions reductions (nearly two thirds of total emissions), so it’s a big part of the story.
It’s also a massive jobs engine. Because when we’re talking about everything, that’s… an awful lot. In Australia it’s over 5 million gas-connected buildings, each with an average of perhaps 2.5 appliances that need to be replaced.
For an even larger number of existing homes and other buildings it’s insulation and draught proofing. Double glazing, roof painting (to light, heat-reflective colours) and thermal curtains/blinds. In commercial and industrial settings it’s variable speed drives, new pumps, pipework and processes.
It’s a national EV charging and battery swap network covering both private and fleet vehicles – cars, buses, trucks and trains – plus the solar, wind, batteries and transmission upgrades associated with the shift to renewables. It’s investment in active and public transport, new sharing, recycling and circular industries that make the most of what we already have, including repurposing materials from replaced fossil fuel infrastructure.
These are career length opportunities for a veritable army of designers and draperers, electricians and engineers, metalworkers and marketers, plumbers and project managers, safety and software specialists, technicians and trainers, to name just a few of the trades and professions that will be needed.
Labour v capital
The fossil fuel extraction, power, gas appliance manufacturing, auto mechanics and other industries that will decline as a result of the transition are generally capital intensive.
A study of ABS jobs data shows that at risk jobs are a small fraction of the jobs that will be created.
While mining and manufacturing are susceptible to automation, retrofitting homes and commercial buildings is highly bespoke and human-labour intensive. Many regional jobs can be created to replace those lost.
In fact, Beyond Zero Emissions’ research found the potential for up to 1.8 million new jobs. That’s approx. 12.5% of Australia’s current workforce (ABS: Labour Force, May, 2024).
And since Australia is significantly exposed to the impacts of climate change, there are also nation transforming opportunities for resilience and adaptation projects to buttress our cities and infrastructure from the mounting risks of coastal erosion and sea level rise, riverine and flash flooding, storm damage, bushfire, drought, extreme heat, and prepare our emergency and health services to deal with more disasters and new diseases. Not to mention the protection and restoration of our ailing ecosystems.
The Other Budget: Labor staring down the barrel of a climate deficit
Jobs and Hope
What are the policies that could create this economic opportunity and deliver “jobs and hope” to millions of Australians and their families? Five key steps include:
- Commitment
- Capacity building
- Investment
- Targets and regulation
- Communication
Commitment
Change management theory introduces the concept of the burning platform: to enact change, make the old ways of doing things untenable. In Australia’s case this could mean:
- A commitment to no new gas or coal developments or fossil-based industry. This does not mean turning off the tap today, or next year, or next decade. Australia is awash with approved gas and coal projects, many of which will be producing for decades: the 2070s in the case of those most recently approved. Enough production is currently uncontracted that with the right policy settings to drive demand reduction, no new supplies are required.
- Curtailing gas connections to new buildings (and requiring electrification in the case of renovations that require a development approval).
- Sunset dates on the sale of gas appliances and internal combustion engine vehicles.
- Ensuring minimum efficiency/electrification standards are in place in the National Construction Code (the proposed updates for commercial buildings are promising), rentals (Victoria’s proposed requirements are leading the way here) and government procurement.
Capacity Building
To avoid inflationary pressure, we would need to ramp up capacity in the form of a skilled workforce and availability of materials. This could include turbo charging vocational education, subsidising apprenticeships, offering cross training to plumbers and gas fitters, supporting local gas products manufacturers to switch to efficient electric alternatives, and reviewing value chains for necessary imports.
Diverting capital and expertise from the fossil mining and gas distribution sector into related areas, such as off-shore wind, transmission and critical minerals would help create capacity in those areas.
Investment
A currency issuing government can afford whatever it chooses. However, the most obvious target would be to divert the $14.5 billion spent annually on fossil fuel subsidies towards the great efficiency/electrification project.
Given a typical house retrofit might cost around $20,000 – $30,000 for insulation, draft sealing, heating, hot water and cooking (more for double glazing), that much could fully fund up to half a million retrofits per annum, making this a two decades long project.
But it wouldn’t need to fully fund improvements, given many investments can be made in the context of replacements of old appliances that householders or landlords would have been obliged to replace anyway, and via upgrades required to meet compliance with National Construction Code, minimum rental and government procurement standards.
Public investment can be targeted towards expanding upgrades to public and social housing; assisting lower income households, and helping owners’ corporations with common infrastructure upgrades to strata buildings.
Targets and regulation
Clear targets would be needed, such as ratcheting up minimum and average building and appliance star ratings over time. To avoid an (even greater) influx of cheap, low quality electric appliances and shonky installation, the Greenhouse and Efficiency Minimum Standards (GEMS) program requires urgent work to include efficient electric appliances.
A key regulatory consideration is how states deal with the decline of their existing gas distribution networks, ensuring that those who can least afford to electrify are not left covering the fixed costs left by those who have. Regulation to ensure States and Councils can plan effectively and with reduced risk of adverse litigation to improve resilience and adaptation is also vital.
Bans on advertising (including on social media), sponsorship and political donations by fossil fuel firms and companies pedalling emissions intensive products, such as those recently announced by the Scottish city of Edinburgh and proposed by the UN Secretary General would go a long way towards reducing the mixed messages the public currently receives.
Communication
Last, a jobs and hope education campaign: a “slip, slop, slap” for our times. This would cover:
- The huge range of jobs, apprenticeships, education opportunities and support for workers whose industries are adversely affected.
- Availability of subsidies for efficiency and electrification.
- The rationale, including co-benefits in the form of better health (through indoor and urban air quality improvements, which itself would relieve enormous pressure on the strained medical sector), cost of living reductions through more efficient homes and transport.
- The alternative if we don’t transition fast. Both in terms of the deepening climate crisis, and the opportunity cost as higher ambition countries leapfrog Australia.
- The inspiration and hope that we can tackle emissions reduction, build resilience to the now inevitable and increasingly deleterious impacts of climate change, and maintain a thriving, (and sustainable) smart economy.
Some of these recommendations rely on implementation at state and local government level. In such cases the federal government can provide funding and facilitation.
The urgency of the moment, and the fact we have locked in climate impacts that require adaptation, no matter the emission reductions we now achieve, means we need a national approach – a ‘war-time’ effort of coordination across all these areas. We cannot simply leave it to markets.
Rallying call
Of course, this is merely a high-level summary of what could be done. There is much more around ensuring continuity of domestic energy supply, accelerating the renewables transition, optimising consumer energy resources and demand management opportunities (including vehicle to grid).
Key would be government willingness to free itself from the shackles of fossil donation dependency to the extent it can tell the truth about the extremely risky situation we are in, and act decisively. The crossbench’s calls for more work on transparency, integrity and donation reform are critically important.
But with the right policy framework, honesty and political will, Jobs and Hope could become a rallying call for a generation and generate enormous political capital for a courageous government.
David McEwen is a Director at Adaptive Capability, providing climate risk and emissions reduction strategy, program and project management. He works with businesses, community leaders, policy makers, designers and engineers to deliver impactful change. His book, Navigating the Adaptive Economy, was released in 2016. He holds an MBA from the Australian Graduate School of Management and a certificate in Sustainability and Climate Risk from the Global Association of Risk Professionals.