Whether it takes days, weeks or months to be formalised by the United Nations, Australia looks to be on track to win its bid to host next year’s global climate summit in partnership with Pacific Island nations.
This leaves the Liberal-National opposition with nowhere to hide on the Coalition’s most internally divisive battleground. That’s the question of where it will stand on climate and energy policy through to the next election in 2028 and beyond, highlighted by Australia’s currently bipartisan political commitment to net-zero decarbonisation by 2050.
Once the hosting decision is finalised, the Coalition has to choose its ground. A substantial portion of the Nationals’ party room is implacably opposed to net-zero, as are several leading Liberals, most obviously on the party’s hard right. Net-zero or not is the question that can blow the fragile conservative Coalition apart — again.
Mad, crazy mad
Before the May 3 election, which the Coalition lost disastrously, then opposition leader Peter Dutton condemned hosting the so-called COP31 as “madness”, falsely claimed it would cost taxpayers “tens of billions of dollars”, and vowed to pull out of the bid if he won. That had clear echoes of US President Donald Trump pulling out of the UN’s Paris Agreement for global climate action in January, as soon as he took office for his second term.
Is that still where the Coalition stands? Who knows, because officially the Liberal and opposition leader Sussan Ley has put all policies up for review and potential reset. With net-zero the focus of specific internal reviews by both the Libs and the Nats, the hosting outcome is likely to land before the Coalition makes up its fractured mind.
Only Türkiye stands in Australia’s way, and by insider accounts its bid is being ground down through the ponderously tiresome consensus processes that characterise UN decision-making. Observers wait impatiently for Türkiye’s final concession and withdrawal, with the clear implication that it needs to be bought off in some meaningful diplomatic way.
Play fair
Nonetheless, expectations are high that COP31, the 31st Convention of the Parties for the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), will be held in Adelaide in November next year. Keener likely participants are booking out hotel rooms to beat the thousands of international visitors who will come for the annual summit, which this year is being held in Brazil.
Civil society, the government sector and business will mobilise for the largest international diplomatic event in Australia’s history, which also is billed as the “world’s biggest trade fair”. It’s like the Olympics for multinational horse trading on climate policy and the “net-zero by 2050” transformation of the global economy.
Lite and uneasy
The pro-climate action movement overwhelmingly wants the Australia-Pacific-hosted COP31 to proceed, not least because it will escalate global scrutiny on Australia’s emissions-reduction performance, and force stronger action to phase out fossil fuels. That may well cause uncomfortable moments for the Albanese government, given its policy ambiguity on fossil fuels, especially gas. But there are also coal exports that represent a diplomatic affront to sea-level-rise-threatened Pacific Island neighbours. But for the Coalition, it’s like a ticking time bomb wrapped in a political clusterfuck.
Climate action or otherwise is at the heart of the Coalition haemorrhaging support from Gen Z and women voters. Being anti-COP31 will also play straight into the damaging slur that the Coalition remains “Trump-lite” while being reckless with vital geopolitical strategic relationships in the Pacific and our economically critical trade relationship with China, the main source globally of key clean-energy technologies such as solar panels, wind turbines, batteries and electric vehicles.
But switching even to tacit support of COP31 coming Down Under will infuriate the anti-net-zero brigade in Coalition ranks, with its political kamikaze modus operandi, encouraged by the ultra-conservative cheer squad echo chamber of the Murdoch media, far-right think tanks and fossil-fuel industry vested interests.
Ley on the line
Expect all the usual carry-on about spurning Australians battling the cost-of-living crisis, technologically compromising ourselves by taking solutions from China, and endangering the US military alliance and AUKUS by not obsequiously toeing the Trump hardline on climate denial and inaction. Overwhelming the same batshit crazy playbook as before the election, with nothing learnt from that debacle for the conservative side.
What to do, Ley? Try to start building your bridge back towards the sensible centre, where elections famously are won? Or surrender to your internal enemies lest they get anger-mobilised to bring your leadership down long before you get to face the voters as an alternative prime minister?
Do these gab-fests really advance the world fowards net zero? And guaranteed the Govt will still keep approving new gas and oil wells.
The gabfests certainly gather Government reps from all over for the lobbyists to whisper sweet nothings about future job opportunities
Of course they do – if not just to bring it front of stake where people can’t turn away and say they ‘didn’t know’
… and Albanese and Co. keep on approving coal and gas projects? How does that sit with this bid and in particular with its Pacific island co-sponsors?
That was my first thought on Australia hosting bid on anything to do with stopping climate change from getting worse, when so very guilty of approving more and for longer allowances.
What policy ambiguity on fossil fuels?
It is truly bizarre that the Nats, and some Libs, are refusing to face the reality of a changing climate. Most farmers are already well aware of the changes that are happening to rainfall patterns, to heatwaves, to storms, floods and cyclones.
Continuing to sell (or virtually give away) gas and coal on the international market may bring prosperity to certain shareholders (and retired politicians who like to join the boards or executives of said companies), but they cannot be blind to the fact that the more fossil fuels are removed from the ground and burnt the faster the global temperatures will rise and the more catastrophic the consequences for all Australians.
It won’t be Woodside, or Santos, or Whitehaven, or Adani, or BHP, providing emergency and rebuilding assistance to Australians affected by rising sea levels, more intense storms, floods, fires or heatwaves. The federal government is always the insurer of last resort, which means taxpayer funds will have to be redirected from defence, health and education.
So I still wonder what is the main driver of climate change denial by the Murdoch press, the IPA, and other far-right think tanks?
Firstly it’s a very long time since anyone from the Nationals had anything to do with farming with the possible exception of Barnaby when he is looking for a big hat and a paddock to stand in to make some garrulous comments.
The Nationals are the party of the miners.
As to Woodside, or Santos, or Whitehaven, or Adani, or BHP, providing emergency and rebuilding assistance that’s not going to happen full stop.
The Nationals and Newscorpse may not believe in climate change but their insurance company does.
given the recent trajectory of emissions and the locations (United Arab Emirates and Azerbaijan) Australia is an entirely appropriate choice to ensure minimal action is taken – mores the pity
Weren’t fossil fuel companies big sponsors of COP 27 – https://corporateaccountability.org/media/cop27-sponsors-major-polluters/ – no doubt the Albanese govt will double down on that disgraceful precedent.
I was wondering about the involvement of the fossil fuel industry being involved in COP meetings. It’s like having astrosurfers involved in our politics pretending to represent the grassroots. It’s time to bar these groups from attending
This seems to be further evidence of the suicidal, narcotic drug-like addiction to both dirty planet-destroying fossil fuels and life-destroying, highly dangerous, and toxic nuclear power, held by corrupt, mainly white, middle-class, and middle-aged politicians, particularly DAFFY DONALD DUMP, ALONG WITH HIS MINISCULE LAP DOGS. SIMPLE SUPERSTITIOUS SUS(S)AN, IN CONCERT WITH ALBO THE LITTLE GREY DORMOUSE, EGGED ON BY HIS HENCHMEN. HICK, QUEENSLAND HACK, MURRAY WATT, AND POSTULATING PETER KHALIL, all no doubt in love with the sound of ill gotten filthy lucre, emanating from the deep pockets of the fossil fuel/mining corporations, who are greedy untaxed/undertaxed tycoons, plutocrats, and oligarchs, as well as the reprehensible reptile, along with his minions of 10th rate semi-literate amateurish scribblers and hydrogen sulphide filled radio and television shock jocks and airhead commentators. Let’s face it: 19th-century coal and 20th-century petroleum and nuclear energy are decidedly retro as energy forms, and only modern, up-to-date, clean, green, non-nuclear renewable energy can save our dear old planet, with its wonderful ecology and biodiversity.
The LNP aren’t the only one’s divided on Climate Change. Many of the Pacific Islands (countries and aligned territories) do not agree as one unit and most of them certainly do not agree with ‘joint host’ Australia’s current stance on CC in supporting fossil fool projects. Will the bid go via the Pacific Islands Forum? Will the Polynesians, Melanesians, Micronesians and Aligned Territories (French, USA, NZ) all agree? What will happen to NZ’s credibility? Can all of this be settled at COP 30 so COP 31 will not be another sham?
our prime minister is a covid coward and very timid what pity
Well may the Coalition rant on about net zero and deny climate change but our younger generations have been penalised enough by these old men and their money grabbing corporations. Enough seeing the impact on their health in tonight’s 4 Corners without completely destroying their future.
Why should COP come to Australia? We are opening new coal and gas mines, we allow “mickey mouse” offsets to maintain our fossil fuel addiction and we criminalise protests in support of real climate action. We are hypocrites and would be participating in the greenwashing that the COP process has become, the capture by the fossil fuel industry.
We obviously need a committee to establish a taskforce to enable a cohort of selected entities to consider and report on the verbosity and circumlocution which often pervades the reporting structure inherent in these convocations and the egregious overuse of soliloquy.
Phew.
Or, as they could just be reminded of the Cree Indian proverb:
Only when the last tree has died, and the last river poisoned, and the last fish been caught will we realise we cannot eat money.