On
Saturday September 7, 2013, it was announced that Tony Abbott, a member of Australia's Liberal Party, would be the 28th Prime Minister. The victory
by the Liberals marked a new era in Australian politics. Since 2007, the
government has been under control by the Labor Party where there were three
changes in power within the party. Kevin Rudd was the first PM of this
era; in 2010, Julia Gillard ousted her fellow Laborer only to hold this office
until the same gentleman that she replaced, Kevin Rudd, also ousted her in
2012. This victory by the Liberals was not only a change in power at the
federal level, but it now gives the Liberal Party the chance to implement
values and initiatives in Australia that are vastly different than those held
by the Labor Party.
This
election has raised many concerns throughout the international environmental
community, particularly those in the fields of climate and biodiversity.
Before I can go any further, I believe that it is important to briefly
discuss the term "liberal", referring to the Liberal Party, and this
party's platform.
In
America, "liberal", referring to American politics, usually correlates to the Democratic
Party. The media portrays Democrats as liberals and even Democratic
politicians refer to themselves as liberals. However, in international
politics, the term liberal actually means the exact opposite of what we
attribute the word to in America and carries more "conservative"
weight to it. Ironically, the Australian Liberal Party's platform is
almost idea-for-idea the same as the American Republican Party. Taken
from their website, the Liberal Party believes in a limited government; they
have a large belief in private sector initiatives; and they believe
"simply...in the individual freedom and free enterprise." Other
phrases that stick out are "bureaucratic red tape", "burdensome
taxes" and (I am not sure if they took this from the Romney campaign or if
the Romney campaign borrowed this from the Liberal Party) "businesses and
individuals - not government - are the true creators of wealth and
employment."₁ There are clearly many
similarities between the Australian Liberal Party and the American Republican
Party. This needed to be clarified in order for you, the reader, to grasp
and understand the conceptual differences in terminology as it relates to
international politics versus American politics.
In
the days since the election, soon-to-be Prime Minister Abbott has made it clear
to the world that he is planning to completely change Australia's position on a
number of issues. Speaking with people that are Australian and/or are
living in the country at the moment, Australia is currently facing a deficit
crisis. Through research, I have come across information that leads me to
believe that Abbott plans to erase part of or all of this deficit through
dramatic domestic and foreign spending cuts to programs that many in the nation
would deem as essential to everyday life and for the wellness of the nation.
From
an environmental perspective, this is worrisome. Australia has some of
the most pristine and delicate landscape and seascape in the world. In
fact, Australia has 16 sites throughout the nation that are UNESCO Natural
(environmental/cultural) World Heritage Sites.₂
Early plans by the Liberal Party seem to disregard many of these natural and
national treasures in an attempt to "boost the economy" or
"stimulate the private sector". One of the first initiatives
that Tony Abbott plans to tackle is the full repeal of the carbon tax that is
currently in place.₃ This carbon tax, which only came into
effect 14 months ago, was implemented by the Labor Party.₄ In just a short period of time, it has already had
remarkable effects on Australian carbon emissions. ABC Australia reports
that "emissions from electricity have fallen by about seven percent, coal
use for electricity is down by about 17 percent and renewable energy generation
is up by 25 percent" as a result of the carbon tax. This scheme has
Australia on track to meet their Renewable Energy Target, which aims to have
20% of electricity coming from renewable energy by 2020. Abbott and the
Liberal Party are relying on a Direct Action program to
replace the already successful carbon tax program. Many leading
Australian economists have already expressed skepticism about this program and
its effectiveness. This plan is already believed to not meet the
standards required to support the widely popular and already-in-place plan of
reducing emissions 20% of 2000 levels by 2020. In fact, it seems as if
Abbott has already conceded this fight as he has publically stated that his
plan can meet the 5% reduction that they have targeted, much less than the
publically supported and bipartisan supported 20%. There are also
estimates that under this plan, emissions will actually increase 9% rather than
decrease.₁₀
Instead
of the carbon tax, this Direct Action plan gives taxpayer dollars to the
polluting companies as an incentive to reduce their emissions. This is
exactly like subsidy programs in the United States. The catch: these
companies have no requirement to actually reduce their emissions, as there is
no limit on pollution.
In
addition to this dramatic move by Abbott and the Liberal Party, he also plans
to reduce spending on climate change action via greenhouse gas emission
reductions. Abbott has budgeted $3.2 billion AUD (Australian Dollars) to
his Direct Action initiative. He also stated that he would not spend a
dime more, even if it were required to meet his 5% emissions reduction target.
Abbott
is not taking his first major policy task lightly; he knows that this is an
uphill battle with many obstacles. In the current government, it would be
foolish for him to take up this task as soon as he is sworn in. The Green
Party and the Labor Party, who make up the majority of the Senate, have both
stated that they will defend the carbon tax at all costs. Any attempt by
Abbott to take the repeal bill to them will result in a failure. However,
should he wait until the new Senate convenes in July 2014, he may have a better
chance of repealing the tax, although it is not known what the party make-up of
the new Senate will be.₅
Another
obstacle that Abbott faces is the inevitable ratification of the second phase
of the international carbon emissions treaty, the Kyoto Protocol. This
commitment, which was one of the last achievements of Prime Minister Rudd's
tenure, calls for an international reduction of greenhouse gasses of 5%-25% by
2020 and a 2-degree warming limit in global temperatures.
In
many classes I have taken on natural resources and environmental policy, I have
been repeatedly taught about the "resource curse." This term
refers to nations that are increasingly dependent on their abundant natural
resources to drive their economies. In Saudi Arabia it is oil; in Russia
it is natural gas; in Australia, it is coal. However, these nations
actually have less economic growth than they all project, resulting in economic
hardships for the country and its peoples. The Australian Liberal Party
has many ties to the mining and fossil fuel industry, which should come as no
surprise given their less-than-appealing climate action goals and seemingly
anti-environmental and pro-coal policies. It should then be expected that
the Liberal Party would support and implement policies that benefit these
industries. Abbott's ties to the industry may also explain his effort to
repeal the Minerals Resource Rent Tax.₆ This policy taxes all profits
that are made on the extraction of non-renewable resources.₇
Perhaps
the most notable and important ecological (marine) formation on Earth, the
Great Barrier Reef, is in the crosshairs of Tony Abbott. He has voiced
support for the expansion of the nations largest coal seaport at Abbot Point.
This expansion calls for the dredging and depositing of over 3 million
cubic meters of materials INSIDE of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.
At risk are turtles, dolphins, thousands of other species and, of course,
the single most important marine formation on earth--The Reef. Not only
is this essential factor of marine biodiversity at risk, but lest not forget
that the Great Barrier Reef is arguably Australia's largest tourist attraction
brining in over $6 billion AUD each year.₈
All
of this frightening information isn't to say that the Liberal Party is the
party of the bad guys and that when they ousted the Labor Party all went to
Hell. No. The Labor Party itself was no poster child for the environment
either. They too had their fair share of policies that I would deem
disgraceful and irresponsible, as it relates to the environment. As
George Monbiot of The Guardian put it, "Labor’s failure to protect the
natural world ensures that Abbott’s philistinism is harder to contest."₉ Constant failures on part of the
national leaders to protect an essential part of the Australian economy and the
Australian way of life - the environment - creates this notion in society that
this - environmental degradation - may be the new norm necessary to advance
Australia economically. It is a scheme by the higher-up's--they have
pulled the carpet over the eyes of the people. Essentially, they have been
able to get away with egregious acts of implementing harmful environmental
policies that are aimed at benefiting special interests and removing the
"green tape" (environmental regulations) that Tony Abbott claims are
harming the nation.
The social and environmental programs that have been
implemented and adopted by past administrations - the Kyoto Protocol and the
Carbon Tax - seem to exemplify the Australian ethos of the peoples' deep and
passionate relationship with the environment. Australians are passionate about
their environment and take pride in its natural beauty, whether it is the Great
Barrier Reef, the Desert's or the beautiful beaches that line the
island-nation-continent. It is for this reason that it makes sense to
have a carbon tax to reduce emissions and promote renewable energy in an
attempt to clean up the air and reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions that
are degrading the environment. It is for this reason that it makes sense
that Australians treasure the protection of the Great Barrier Reef and the
nation's abundant marine life. It is for this reason that it does not make
sense that Tony Abbott has been chosen to lead a nation that is rich in
environmental and natural beauty.
1) http://www.liberal.org.au/our-beliefs
2) http://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/AU/
3) http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2013/09/09/3844360.htm
4) http://www.alp.org.au/asustainableenvironment
5) http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2013/09/09/3844360.htm
6) http://www.liberal.org.au/latest-news/2013/05/06/failed-mining-tax-should-be-scrapped-not-expanded
7) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minerals_Resource_Rent_Tax
8) http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2044585,00.html
9) http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/05/abbott-climate-change-election
10) http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2013/09/09/3844360.htm
