Language matters: how the carbon lobby sells climate catastrophe as “sensible”
The scale of the climate crisis that we face requires a policy response of unprecedented breadth and ambition. Put simply, the time for a response to climate change which is, in the eyes of the carbon lobby, “balanced”, “measured” or “sensible”, is no longer possible, if it ever was.
The IPCC, in its seminal report on the impacts of 1.5C of warming, recommended that we must reduce emissions by close to 50% by 2030, and reach net zero by 2050. Achieving this will require actions which are not “sensible” according to the carbon lobby — but they are critical for the rest of us.
Last month, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres called on countries to escalate their nationally determined commitments (NDCs):
“Every week brings new climate-related devastation… The situation will get worse unless we act now with ambition & urgency… I am asking all leaders to cut emissions by 45% by 2030 and get to carbon neutrality by 2050.”
In his testimony to a British parliament select committee, renowned naturalist Sir David Attenborough declared that “we cannot be radical enough”, in order to avoid climate catastrophe and its impacts on the natural world.
Such ambition is almost always countered in large part by vested interests in the fossil fuel industry attempting to delay our transition to a zero carbon economy. The carbon lobby would have us believe that we still have time for a “softly softly” approach, which protects their profitability and ultimately, their own survival.
When the carbon lobby calls for a “sensible” approach to climate and energy policy, we must read this as “delay”. It is not sensible to risk the lives of millions of people, for the sake of protecting corporate interests. In fact, it is the complete opposite. It would be dangerous to prolong the status quo, when it is clear that our emissions-intensive economy is driving our species and the natural world to catastrophe.
The inadequacy of the majority of Australian state and federal government responses to climate change, despite all the scientific advice they have received, is alarming. It suggests in part that governments are captured by the carbon lobby, and serve those who profit most from a carbon intensive economy, rather than protecting the population from the worst impacts of climate change.
So for this week’s post, we’re going to take a look at the language of delay.
The carbon lobby is very effective at staying “on message”. Right now, its message is effectively about the virtues of inaction. Words like “balanced”, “measured”, “responsible” and “sensible” are being used by the carbon lobby and the federal government to quell the sense of urgency and prolong the use of fossil fuels.
These words are used not only to describe the actions we take, but also the very nature of our energy mix. The phrase “technology neutral” is the go-to term for the carbon lobby, usually coupled with something about governments not “picking winners”. Fossil fuel producers would have us believe that a “balanced” approach to reducing emissions means an energy mix with equal parts coal, gas and renewables. Except that such an approach doesn’t actually get us to net zero emissions.
‘Balanced, sensible’
Today the newly appointed Australian head of the World Coal Association, Michelle Manook, disputed the need to transition away from coal, saying:
“Investment is what is needed in cleaner technologies and we have to have a much more balanced and solution-focused discussion between government, investors and industry.”
It’s a classic example of the carbon lobbying’s recent messaging around “balance”, which emphasises that embracing renewables, for example, shouldn’t involve a rejection of fossil fuels.
Let’s take a look at some other proponents of balanced and sensible messaging…
In January, after the Australian government was reproached by Pacific Island nations for its failure to tackle growing emissions, Prime Minister Scott Morrison assured the Fijian Prime Minister that Australia was pursuing “sensible, achievable policies” to meet its Paris Agreement commitments.
In February, Morrison spewed forth all of the carbon lobby’s buzzwords, while announcing a $2 billion top-up to his government’s flagship climate policy, the emissions reduction fund:
“It’s important to have a balance in your emissions reductions policies. You’ve got to have the cool head as well as the passionate heart… Our Government will take, and is taking, meaningful, practical, sensible, responsible action on climate change without damaging our economy or your family budget.”
In March, commenting on a prospective closure date for the state-owned Muja coal-fired power station, WA Energy Minister Bill Johnston said “we’re looking at what’s a sensible closure”.
After declaring that the Adani Carmichael coal mine wouldn’t be the last mine she approves, Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk said that her government had taken a “sensible approach” in approving the mine.
In November, after the WA government lifted a statewide fracking ban, federal Resources Minister Matt Canavan said it was a:
“…sensible decision that will potentially earn billions of dollars for the WA and national economies.”
Earlier this month, following analysis from energy consultant Hugh Saddler, who said that Australia wouldn’t meet its Paris Agreement commitment unless action was taken on transport, and coal and gas exports, a government spokesperson claimed Australia has made “responsible, achievable and balanced commitments” to reduce emissions.
This language has also been a key tool in the carbon lobby’s repertoire for quite some time…
Here is Jennifer Westacott, the CEO of the Business Council of Australia, in an opinion piece in the AFR in April:
“On tackling climate change, action must strike a balance between reducing emissions while protecting jobs and living standards, especially in regional Australia…”
In May, Westacott took aim at the Labor party’s climate policy ahead of the federal election:
“…we need a realistic, pragmatic transition to a lower carbon economy but without clarity about the detail, the costs and the implications of emission reductions policies we risk yet another false start.”
In May, the Minerals Council of Australia (MCA) garnered headlines after attacking the Labor party’s decision not to deploy the accounting trick of using Kyoto carryover credits to meet Australia’s 2030 targets, declaring “let’s be sensible”.
Throughout the federal election campaign, the MCA repeatedly used the phrases “measured response” and “measured transition”.
In an interview on 2GB in August last year, the NSW Minerals Council’s Stephen Galilee, one of Australia’s most vocal supporters of coal mining, reckoned that:
“More renewable energy is a good thing and it should be supported, as long as it is done in a sensible manner.”
Earlier this month, in an opinion piece in the AFR, APPEA CEO Andrew McConville opined that slowing or stopping the development of gas reserves in Australia would push investment to countries more amenable to fossil fuel production:
“…the ambitions of a state-based agency to circumvent national and international policy to combat the global challenge of climate change threatens to drive investment into jurisdictions with more pragmatic policies.”
In March, the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies (AMEC) applauded the WA Premier Mark McGowan after he rejected recommended guidelines from the WA EPA that would require high-emitting projects offset their emissions. AMEC said McGowan was taking a “sensible and balanced approach”.
Many of the carbon lobby’s member companies naturally usesupport such language, but perhaps none more so than Woodside CEO Peter Coleman. In a speech to the APPEA conference in May, Coleman said the gas industry wants:
“an approach to climate policy that is national, consistent with the Paris Agreement and which balances the environment and industries that support jobs and economic growth”.
In a subsequent session at the same conference, Coleman said:
“Nobody wants special deals, we just want sensible policy.”
While this is clearly not an exhaustive list, there is a common thread throughout much of this language. And that is the language of delay — don’t be fooled.
