果冻影院

For years听听鈥斕�听鈥� have听听fossil fuel production while maintaining rhetorically that the world needs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But global emissions are overwhelmingly caused by the extraction, transport and burning of fossil fuels. Unless fossil fuels are phased out, emissions will grow and the climate crisis will worsen.

At COP28 climate negotiations in Dubai, which wrapped up last week, this fact finally became the centre of attention. And fossil fuel producers were听听鈥� forced to听听or change their tune.

Interestingly, Australia seems to be doing the latter, at least rhetorically. While successive governments have听听to keep fossil fuel production out of the spotlight at the UN talks, Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen听听Australia supports the global phasing out of fossil fuels in energy systems by 2050. Clearly eager to avoid being seen as the villain at the talks, Bowen named Saudi Arabia as the main blocker to an agreement on phasing out fossil fuels.

But the text of COP decisions matters much less than the actions states and companies take. Australia 鈥� one of the听听of fossil fuel-based carbon dioxide 鈥� is fuelling the problem, not solving it. Currently, Australian companies are moving to expand fossil fuel production:听听are in planning, at a cost of around A$200 billion. Some of these are 鈥�,鈥� likely to add huge quantities of emissions.

Why Australia faces charges of hypocrisy

The Albanese government has already听听a number of new fossil fuel projects,听听the fossil fuel expansionism of its conservative predecessors. But now that Australia has declared support for a global phase-out of fossil fuels, it must curtail its own exports or face continued听.

How could Australia do that while managing the fallout? Interestingly, Bowen鈥檚听听contained the seeds of an answer: a 鈥減hase out of fossil fuels is Australia鈥檚 economic opportunity as [a] renewable energy superpower鈥�. In line with this sentiment, Australia should adopt the mission of leading the Asia-Pacific region to a prosperous future by simultaneously phasing out its fossil fuel exports while phasing up its clean energy exports; by becoming a听听instead of a dirty energy one.

Doing so would require a dramatic shift in Australia鈥檚 international climate posture: from a defensive, parochial, technocratic stance aimed at protecting fossil fuel expansion to proactive, outward-looking and pragmatic leadership; from merely focusing on its own territorial emissions to using all powers at its disposal in its听.

First a new project ban, then a net zero plan

Our coal and gas exports are entirely within our sovereign control, and give us enormous leverage over our regional trading partners. No one is suggesting stopping fossil fuel exports overnight. But we could start by听, and then convening our regional partners to work out a plan to phase out existing production and consumption. Australian leadership would involve supporting our neighbours 鈥攖hrough investment, trade and aid 鈥攖o ensure their populations can access energy from zero-carbon sources, just as we鈥檙e aspiring to do at home.

Phasing out fossil fuel exports is thus best conceptualised as part of a shift in our foreign and trade policy aimed at securing our and our region鈥檚 prosperity against the existential threat of climate change 鈥� and amid a global pivot to clean energy. Call it 鈥溾��. Viewed in this light, the typical objections to a fossil fuel phase-out in Australia look pathetic.

The weak objections to a phase-out

The first objection claims we are not responsible for the overseas emissions produced from burning our exported coal and gas. This falsely conflates Australia鈥檚 national interest in reducing emissions globally with its international legal responsibility for听听濒辞肠补濒濒测.

Nothing in the Paris Agreement prevents a country from taking actions that would reduce or avoid emissions in another country. It is reckless and self-defeating to concern ourselves only with emissions produced on our territory when our power to influence global emissions is so much greater. Let鈥檚 hope that Bowen鈥檚 rhetorical shift at COP28 signals acceptance of this fact.

The second objection is that leaving our fossil fuels in the ground will not affect global emissions, because if we don鈥檛 sell our coal and gas, someone else will. Aside from its immorality (the 鈥渄rug dealer鈥檚 defence鈥�), the objection defies Economics 101: if you reduce supply of a product, its price goes up, causing demand to contract. Other countries might supply听some听of the shortfall, but Australia is such a big producer that it is implausible to think we could exit the coal and gas markets without dramatically reducing global emissions.

Moreover, it鈥檚 shortsighted to think of fossil fuel export policy in isolation from the wider foreign policy choices we face. Australia鈥檚 current foreign policy is to听: we literally pay public servants to help multinational companies sell more coal and gas. But if we gave our diplomats the nobler mission of leading our region鈥檚 decarbonisation, our leadership would help to make trade in fossil fuels redundant.

The last oft-heard objection is that phasing out fossil fuel production would cost too much. The foreign-owned corporations that produce most of our coal and gas听听补苍诲听, while capturing听. Scaling up as a clean energy superpower could bring more economic growth, jobs and tax revenue than would be lost from fossil fuels 鈥� especially if we听听on its way out.

Phase-outs can be done: lessons from overseas

Denmark, France, Ireland and Costa Rica are听听of countries that have foregone new fossil fuel exploration and production opportunities; others are听听operations. Doing so is undoubtedly challenging: firms, workers and the communities in which fossil fuel operations are located understandably tend to resist policies that would close their industry.

But government support can smooth the transition. The Spanish government, for instance, negotiated a 鈥渏ust transition agreement鈥� with unions and businesses to phase out coal mining, support affected workers and invest in their communities. My coauthors and I听听this strategy actually increased the government鈥檚 vote share at a subsequent election in the coal regions.

A phase-out of fossil fuel production is听听for a country with our resources, skills and diverse economy. The standard objections provide fossil fuel companies, and the politicians they鈥檝e captured, with convenient excuses for cashing in while the planet 鈥� and Australia 鈥� burns. It鈥檚 time, instead, for bold actions that lead us and our region to a prosperous, fossil-free future.

Links

• Full article in
• Dr Fergus Green's academic profile
• 果冻影院 Political Science听
• 果冻影院 Social & Historical Sciences