Fossil fuel ‘transition’ lacks ambition on emissions

Will we halt new fossil fuel projects?

While some describe COP meetings as talkfests and point to the emissions from travel, there is no more impressive world conference. Held annually and attended by heads or representatives of all UN member states, it is required to take on board the latest climate science and reach agreement, a consensus in fact, on the course of action needed to contain global temperature rise.

While this year’s COP28 failed to agree on “phasing out” fossil fuels, the final text mentioned them for the first time and agreed to “transition away”.

Chris Bowen’s leadership at COP28, as chair of the umbrella group and advocate for stronger language on fossil fuels, will be well received by our potential COP31 Pacific Island co-hosts.

While it can be argued that Australia has already begun to transition away by signing the Glasgow statement to stop spending public money on international fossil fuel projects, the real test is whether the government will now stop approving new fossil fuel projects at home.

Ray Peck, Hawthorn, Vic

Metrics missing from Dubai deal

The final communiqué from COP28 states that the participating nations have agreed to “transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner, accelerating action in this critical decade, so as to achieve net zero by 2050 in keeping with the science”.

On the face of it, it is a step up from the outcomes at COP26 in Glasgow because oil and gas use is now specifically targeted, along with coal, in the fossil fuels mix. However, agreement on a transition is meaningless unless there is also agreement on the metrics that define what “orderly” means.

Those metrics will need to provide guidance on the specific net carbon emissions reduction targets for each nation by year to 2050. But maybe there will also need to be a mechanism to define the reciprocal, progressively reduced annual global fossil fuels export guidance, within which exporting countries will need to compete, to underpin the agreed transition.

The first task our children, and their children, need us to do is the metrics.

Andrew Russell, Carrickalinga, SA

Ethically questionable retirement strategy

This week, SMSF specialist John Wasiliev responded to a question from a retired couple concerning the strategy of upsizing a primary place of residence in order to access the age pension. The couple have a combined net wealth of almost $3 million.

John’s thoughtful and professional response briefly explored the pros and cons, ultimately suggesting that the couple carefully consider professional advice on the matter because the match might not be worth the candle.

What he failed to mention was the dubious ethics of exploiting the exemption of a family home as an asset to maximise government benefits. This isn’t the case of an appreciated “empty nest” being exempt, but a couple proposing to take deliberate steps to acquire a more expensive home to reduce their assessable net worth.

At a time of immense cost-of-living pressures when younger generations are paying higher proportions of their income to fund aged care, it seems remiss of professional advisers not to point out that this specific retired couple are not just capable of supporting themselves through retirement – they are in fact among the wealthiest Australians. It hardly seems appropriate for the couple to receive taxpayer-funded benefits in such circumstances.

David Felix, Brunswick Heads, NSW

Alternative paths to productivity growth

“No wonder productivity is actually falling,” says your editorial, lamenting the increase in government spending and taxation relative to the size of the economy. But there is little evidence of any such relationship. Scandinavian countries have some of the largest government spending and taxation shares in the OECD, but among the highest average incomes and happiest citizens.

Well-designed government spending on infrastructure, R&D and education can increase productivity, while childcare can lift labour force participation. And there is no reason why a wealthy country like Australia should not spend more of its income on helping its most disadvantaged citizens to share its good fortune.

The Coalition’s 23.9 per cent of GDP cap on taxation has no science behind it, just a nostalgia for Howard-era data. It does not even “discipline spending” as you claim, as governments can just meet it by increasing deficits.

You call for multi-year budget surpluses. Yet you remain wedded to the inequitable stage three tax cuts which make such surpluses much harder to achieve.

John Hawkins, University of Canberra

Fellow researcher’s distressing disrespect

I was surprised that in an article explaining why Melbourne University sacked Dr Chris Edmond, The Australian Financial Review chose to repeat Dr Edmond’s description of the Australia Institute’s research on the causes of inflation as “disingenuous bullshit”, without noting that the OECD and IMF’s research had drawn the same conclusion as we did.

While I have never met Dr Edmond, my staff and I have repeatedly been assailed with his intemperate social media posts. While disagreement between researchers is both inevitable and desirable, disrespect and ad hominem attacks are not.

Richard Denniss, executive director, The Australia Institute

WA premier reflects our mining addiction

Your article reporting comments by the West Australian premier (“Indigenous owners ‘split by greenies’” ) reflects an attitudinal problem across the nation. Australia has benefited richly from mining resources, and no government wishes to threaten the tax and royalty income streams. It is far easier to support infinite expansion of oil and gas fields. As a result, governments want to restrict protests and legal challenges to new developments. They want to silence all opposition.

Roger Cook asserts that mining and resources projects in WA are integral to the world’s decarbonisation process. How can opening more gas fields and mines and burning more fossil fuels help reduce carbon dioxide production? Vaunted carbon capture projects such as that of Chevron (Gorgon) failed to meet their promise.

Mr Cook also asserts that mining companies are, by and large, engaging respectfully with Aboriginal groups. The reported damage to the Nammuldi site this year following the legally endorsed destruction of Juukan Gorge in 2020 does not offer any reassurance that the engagement will prevent further damage to our culture and environment.

WA is well placed to become a leader in renewable energy, as well as cultural and environmental responsibility. Following COP28, Australia should set an example by prohibiting additional fossil fuel developments and instead focus on the development of renewable energy.

Gordon Stenning, Seaforth, NSW

On SMRs, it looks like the market has decided

Given the premise that so-called small-scale nuclear reactors could be flat packed and shipped around the world in vast volumes of units to an almost insatiable market, one is obliged to take the view that indeed the market has already spoken.

This is evident in the collapse of the Nuscale project, pointing to a very large shortfall in either the viability of the technology or the credulity of investors.

Patrick Hockey, Clunes, Vic