Australian PM Remains Pro-Coal Despite Climate Change Worries

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott is sticking to his guns as the UN calls for urgent global action against climate change. Abbott, whose 2013 campaign for the prime ministership emphasized his pro-coal stance by targeting the carbon tax imposed by the Labour Party, maintains that ‘for the foreseeable future…the foundation of the world’s energy needs will be coal.’ Earlier this year, in July, Abbott celebrated perhaps his most significant political triumph, when the Australian Parliament repealed the carbon tax introduced by the previous government under Prime Minister Julia Gillard in 2012. Abbott proclaimed to the Australian people that ‘the tax you voted to get rid of is finally gone,’ even as economists, scientists and environmentalists widely condemned the move. This policy change was the focal point of Abbott’s general skepticism concerning climate change and his ultra-conservative stance on environmental issues. Now, in November, as UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon asserts that ‘Science has spoken…there is no ambiguity in the message…leaders must act,’ Prime Minister Abbott has shown the profundity of his belief in the vitality of coal and relative disbelief in the reality of environmental degradation. Despite a growing consensus on the acuteness  of global warming, as exemplified in the latest report issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, , he stands by his promotion of the use of fossil fuels. Abbott has asserted that ‘coal is the foundation of the way we [Australians] live because you can’t have a modern lifestyle without energy.’ Although the IPCC has established that the majority of the world’s electricity can feasibly be powered by low-carbon sources by 2050, Abbott clearly remains cynical and maintains that this transition is not a priority for Australia, the highest per capita producer of carbon emissions in the world. Of course, it is also possible that Abbott is motivated by political, rather than ideological reasons, taking into account the significance of the carbon tax debate in the 2013 election that Abbott won comfortably, and the consistency he managed to exhibit by following through on his promise to scrap the tax. It is also the traditional position of the conservative Coalition to back the powerful Australian coal industry (the country is the world’s second largest producer of coal), and in this sense Abbott is simply staying true to his party’s platform.

In any case, Abbott’s stance has repercussions well beyond  his own country. He has characterized the UN position on environmental preservation as the ‘demonization’ of fossil fuels, and criticized it for being irresponsible regarding the economic development of impoverished countries. ‘Coal is good for humanity,’ and ‘if we are serious about raising people’s living standards in less developed countries…we have to be serious about making the best use of coal,’ Abbott stated. His position appears to be built on the argument that more environmentally sustainable modes of energy production are usually more expensive, or perhaps even further on the very real possibility of resource distribution in the third world being dictated by the demands of the More Economically Developed Countries (MEDCs). For instance, the use of often scarce fertile ground for growing crops to be used for biofuel  could have detrimental effects on the wellbeing of local communities, as it limits the accessibility of land for subsistence farming. At the same time, these factors should only be taken into account if working off the assumption that climate change does not pose a threat, since Less Economically Developed Countries (LEDCs) are inarguably least equipped to handle the climactic shifts that would result from the predicted 4ᵒC global temperature increase. Often, these countries already lie in areas most susceptible to natural disasters such as droughts, earthquakes and flooding, and they do not possess the necessary infrastructure to mitigate such phenomena. The impact from environmental refugees alone would be enough to weigh down the entire world economy, and would hit poor countries hardest.

The question of whether Abbott will continue to deny the authority of the IPCC - and in the eyes of many Australians, to shirk Australia’s responsibility to the international fight against climate change - appears to have been answered. Regardless of the UN’s position, mounting scientific evidence and the overwhelmingly environmentally concerned attitude of the western world at large, it seems Abbott will be upholding his election platform on supporting coal  as his term in office progresses. Unless  we see some decisive evidence that Abbott’s position on the environment is a significant  contributing factor to his current 30% approval ratings, we are not likely to witness any shift in the Prime Minister’s official standpoint.