Just don’t mention the (climate) war

During this election campaign, Australia’s often explosive climate wars has been more akin to Cold War hostilities.

Climate and energy issues have led to occasional flare-ups – such as Matt Canavan declaring net-zero is all over bar the shouting – but lacked the consistent focus of previous campaigns.

All-out war is prevented by both parties needing to be wary of their flanks.

If Labor pushes too hard on climate it risks pushback in three seats in the coal-producing Hunter region, and a broad cost-of-living narrative of higher energy prices.

If the government attacks too hard against more ambitious emissions reduction policies, it further risks losing seats to ‘teal Independents’ across metropolitan centres.

With the Liberal-National coalition holding a one-seat majority and a hung parliament a distinct possibility, it’s a fine line.

On paper, the headline targets of the Coalition and ALP offer a clear differential: the latter has committed to reduce Australia’s greenhouse emissions from 2005 levels by 43 per cent by 2030 and to achieve net-zero by 2050, whereas the government remains committed to the target it set in line with the 2015 Paris Agreement of 26-28 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030, but also underpinned by a net-zero 2050 target.

Targets by themselves are abstract and mean very little to people who don’t work in the field or follow with detailed intent.

Symbolism plays a great deal: a commitment to net-zero despite most global targets being non-binding is powerful because of the weight of nations pledging it.

John Howard suffered greatly in 2007 for not signing onto the Kyoto Protocol, despite the election commitment of establishing an emissions trading scheme.

Outlining policies about how you’ll meet your target is where you’ll get into a conversation about impact.

Job creation and reducing costs through emissions reduction is the key upside, while overseeing policies that lead to extra cost and job insecurity is an important risk to manage.

We’ve seen the odd salvo from the ALP on climate. Labor’s Plan – Powering Australia – puts job creation and reduced power prices front and centre, claiming that the plan will create 604,000 jobs and that each home will be better off by $275 each year.

With this election campaign dominated by cost-of-living pressures, any policy detail can be jumped on to suggest increased prices. Policy announcements have indeed required immediate defence from the ALP.

An example was Labor’s commitment to tighten the baselines for the 215 emitters which are currently covered by the safeguard mechanism.

Applying to facilities emitting 100,000 tonnes of carbon a year, the baseline would be ratcheted up by an annual aggregate of 5 million tonnes a year, delivering an extra 213mt of emissions reductions by 2030.

Unsurprisingly, the Morrison government (notably, Nationals Matt Canavan and Barnaby Joyce in a staunch defence of coal) was immediately on the attack, arguing it would capture 15 coal mines, putting pressure on their viability and employment in regional centres.

Rather than each home being better off by $275 per year, Energy Minister Angus Taylor argued the ALP’s investment in infrastructure would increase each household’s power bill by $580 each year.

The government has taken a steady-as-she-goes approach, maintaining its 2030 reduction target, its $2 billion commitment to the Emissions Reduction Fund, and committing to a $250 million future fuel strategy built from safe policy and political ground.

Australia had a window in 2009 to implement a generational economic reform by implementing an emissions trading scheme.

The failure to do so has led to 13 years of constant political antagonism and a policy framework that business, unions and environmentalists all argue requires reform.

The failure to have climate and energy reform settled across party lines means it will continue to be a fault line that reshapes how the major parties connect with voters, and which voters they connect with.

Perhaps not in this election, but if the trend in Australia continues and mirrors examples in other parts of the Western world we can expect the seats of Shortland, Paterson and Hunter increasingly in the Coalition column and North Sydney, Wentworth and even Curtin in a shade of teal.

While the major parties have been protecting both flanks this time around, the issues leading to these fault lines will not be bridged any time soon.

Joe Doleschal-Ridnell is director at JDR Advisers, where he works with clients in mining, energy and industry