Are we ‘misinformed’ on the carbon lobby? You be the judge.
Lately, the Business Council of Australia (BCA) and the Minerals Council of Australia (MCA) have taken issue with the characterisation of their climate advocacy made by ACCR and other groups.
One word keeps being repeated by the BCA and the MCA, over and over again, in relation to their critics — “misinformed”. Not wrong, not misleading, but misinformed.
Here’s MCA CEO Tania Constable in a letter to Mike Cannon-Brookes in September:
“It is unfortunate that you have accepted without question the misinformed claims of some activists regarding the approach of the MCA to the Paris agreement and its related emissions-reduction targets.” SMH, 14 Sep 2019
Given the letter was written in response to Cannon-Brookes’ co-filing of a shareholder resolution to BHP alongside ACCR, we presume the ‘activists’ Constable referred to are, or at least include, ACCR.
The BCA’s CEO Jennifer Westacott was interviewed on the ABC’s The Business on 20 September. She was asked specifically about an interview ACCR’s Executive Director Brynn O’Brien had given on that program a few days earlier:
“Well, I think it’s a campaign of misinformation. I’ve just gone through our position and it lines up with many of the companies that they’re targeting. We support action on climate change. We support the Paris Agreement. We support the trajectory that the Paris Agreement takes us on. We support renewable energy. We support an energy mix that gets us to that net zero carbon target that people talk about. It’s about getting the transition right. It’s about having an honest conversation with the community. So we reject that campaign of misinformation.” ABC, 20 Sep 2019
Now, just a note here: we’ve met with both organisations in person, and the accuracy of our advocacy has not been called into question during those meetings. We’ve walked them through particular policy positions they have taken, and they haven’t backed down on those points, let alone disputed the way they have been represented by us.
In our assessment of the advocacy of the BCA, MCA and others (APPEA, NSW Minerals Council, Queensland Resources Council, etc), what we see is not straightforward climate change denial. Rather, we see superficial acceptance of climate change and the Paris Agreement, delivered at the same time as they throw their resources into pushing narratives that undermine action to reduce emissions and mitigate climate change.
Considering that our work is informed directly by the statements, submissions, policies and media comments made by these groups, the charge of ‘misinformation’ is very amusing.
In any event, lest people start doubting our credibility, we thought it would be worth setting out the basis for our claims, and letting the BCA’s and MCA’s records speak for themselves.
Both organisations’ role in arguing for the famously defunct National Energy Guarantee (NEG) is a top shelf example of the ‘superficial acceptance’ tactic we refer to above. Both hold up their support for the NEG in its dying days as an example of their support for the Paris Agreement.
What was the NEG? What did the BCA and MCA support?
The final design of the NEG, that was supported by the BCA and MCA, included a legislated electricity sector emissions reduction target of 26%. It is widely accepted that this target for the electricity sector was insufficient, given this is where the opportunities for much deeper cuts lie and that it was not aligned with the goals of the Paris Agreement. In addition, the legislative ‘baking in’ of an inadequate target would have prevented the administrative, rather than legislative, ratcheting up of the target as envisioned by the Paris Agreement.
At the time, the Smart Energy Council were very critical of the NEG, saying it would “cripple” investment in renewables. The Investor Group on Climate Change (IGCC) also criticised the lack of ambition in the NEG.
While many believe (and they may be right, only time will tell) that ‘something would have been better than nothing’, the BCA and MCA have framed their support for the NEG as evidence of their support for the Paris Agreement. This is a mischaracterisation. In supporting this mechanism as per its final design, the BCA and MCA were supporting not only an inadequate target for the electricity sector, but also a mechanism that would have stood in the way of an adequate target being achieved without a further, difficult and potentially intractable law reform process.
The Business Council of Australia’s Paris Agreement doublespeak
Yes, the BCA says it supports the Paris Agreement. So does every man and his dog. Does Australia have in place the necessary policies to deliver the Paris Agreement? No, it does not. Has the BCA played a role in obstructing the achievement of these goals? In ACCR’s assessment, yes.
In the last three years, the BCA has:
- called for investment in existing coal-fired power stations to prolong their lives [see linked video at 9:00];
- supported the use of Kyoto carryover credits which will weaken Australia’s 2030 emissions reduction target from 26–28% (by 2030) to approximately 15%;
- during the 2019 Federal election, claimed that the ALP’s 45% emissions reduction target would inhibit economic growth;
- stated that more ambitious emissions reduction targets would lead to “deindustrialisation”;
- stated that a 45% emissions reduction target would be “economy wrecking”;
- ahead of the 2019 Federal election, told the Liberal party room that it would campaign against the Federal opposition’s ambitious climate policies;
- proposed that the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) be allowed to consider investment in coal or gas-fired generation with carbon capture and storage;
- argued for exemptions from climate policy for emissions intensive industries;
- argued against any extension of the Renewable Energy Target (RET) and stated that “there was no role for state-based” renewable energy targets;
- called for the removal of state-based moratoria on gas development.
Despite its claim that it supports a “market-based price signal” on carbon emissions, the BCA campaigned against Australia’s price on carbon in 2012–14. Last month, BCA CEO Jennifer Westacott claimed that an appropriate price for carbon emissions would be A$10 per tonne, despite the International Monetary Fund (IMF) suggesting Australia would require a carbon price of US$75 per tonne in order to meet the Paris Goals.
In September 2019, the BCA received a ‘Carbon Policy Footprint’ score of -30 from UK-based research group InfluenceMap (on a scale of -100 to +100), ranking it within the 30 most obstructive industry associations in the world on climate policy.
The Minerals Council of Australia’s Paris Agreement doublespeak
Surprise, surprise! The MCA also says that it ‘supports’ the Paris Agreement! Does its record of policy advocacy line up with the Paris Goals? Absolutely not.
Since January 2019 — that’s right, just since the start of this year — the MCA:
- sought to undermine Australia’s already weak nationally determined commitment of 26–28%, by calling for the use of Kyoto carryover credits;
- repeatedly said that we need a “measured response” to address climate change;
- claimed that ambitious emissions reduction targets would destroy jobs, investment and economic growth;
- called for investment in new HELE coal-fired power stations;
- ran 40+ pro-coal advertisements on Facebook throughout the 2019 Federal election;
- claimed coal is “clean” in a 10-page advertorial on coal in The Australian on 22 March;
- campaigned throughout the 2019 Federal election for the approval of Adani’s Carmichael coal mine, which will open up Queensland’s Galilee Basin to a further six coal mines.
Throughout 2017 and 2018, the MCA:
- called for new HELE coal-fired power stations in order to meet Australia’s Paris Agreement target;
- lobbied for government subsidies for new coal-fired power generation;
- criticised the Labor party’s more ambitious emissions reduction targets;
- advocated for the development of a new thermal coal basin in Queensland;
- donated $94,900 to political parties and spent $1.3m on political expenditure in FY2018;
- suggested taxpayers should fund a new coal-fired power station;
- attempted to undermine the clean energy target;
- claimed HELE coal was needed to meet 2030 targets in a submission to a review of climate change policies;
- overstated the subsidies to renewable energy;
- called for HELE coal in a submission to the Finkel review;
- provided Scott Morrison with a lump of coal which he took into Parliament;
- claimed coal-fired power could reduce emissions.
In September 2019, the MCA received a ‘Carbon Policy Footprint’ score of -59 from UK-based research group InfluenceMap (on a scale of -100 to +100), ranking it in the top 10 most obstructive industry associations in the world on climate policy.
The MCA also shares key staff with Coal21, which was created by the coal industry to invest in carbon capture and storage. It is funded by a levy on thermal coal exports. In FY2018, Coal21 spent $3.9 million on political expenditure from a budget of $33 million. Coal21 funded six MPs to visit coal-fired power stations in Japan immediately before then Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull was deposed.
In August this year, it was revealed that Coal21 was briefing advertising agencies on a potential $4–5 million campaign aimed at invoking “national pride” in coal.
If the MCA or the BCA would like to take issue with our work, we’d be happy to have a “fact-based and respectful conversation”, as BCA CEO Jennifer Westacott herself has said she’d like to see. But it is not enough for Westacott and MCA CEO Tania Constable to simply wave their hands in the air and say ACCR is pushing ‘misinformation’, without any evidence to back up that claim.
The BCA and the MCA are under pressure from their members not because of what we have said, but because of what they have said.
If we were them, we’d be focused on getting our own house in order, rather than attacking our critics for daring to point out the mess.
NB: This article was edited for clarity on 28 October 2019.
