Two views on Net Zero for Australia | Ed Cavanough & Aidan Morrison

 

Talk at the Sydney Institute Australia. Pro Net Zero (NZ): 

Ed Cavanough, head of the McKell Institute on the pro NZ side. And...

Aidan Morrison, of the Centre for Independent Studies, on the anti-NZ side. 

Below the fold, the transcript of Cavanough's 15+ minutes, 2,500+ word presentation.

If I can stereotype, I'll say this: Cavanough's speech was full of feelings not facts. Morrison's speech was full of facts not feelings. 

Feelings on the one side (the Left). Facts on the other (the Right). 

Cavanough attacks not the actual arguments on the conservative side, but the Straw Man arguments that he constructs. A "Straw Man" being the extreme exaggeration of the other side's argument, which you then attack, instead of attacking the argument itself. 

His talk is also full of ad hominem, which is the attack on the person not the argument. Playing the man, not the ball. 

Examples: 

Straw Man "arguments": 

• Net zero opponents want to “return to the stone ages” (no industry, no flying, no cars, no mining). 
• NO. People on the Right do not argue this. They simply want to debate whether going Net Zero is the best strategy for Australia. The proponents of Net Zero have no factual argument, so turn skepticism into silly "return to the stone ages" Straw MAn
• Opponents are “stuck in this endless and futile culture war on energy.” 
• Same as above. It's not the Right who is "stuck in an endless ... war". We want to debate the issue. 
• Skeptics advocate “Australian isolationism” on all international issues. 
• No, we don't argue that. We argue that going Net Zero, even if we get to NZ, does nothing to mitigate climate change. As even Australia's Chief Scientist has acknowledged. Emitting just 1% of world emissions, Australia's success or otherwise is irrelevant. And too bad if that's uncomfortable for the NZ proponents.
• Conservatives want Australia to be a “bad climate actor” like China, copying its coal policies. 
• No, we do not want to be a "bad climate actor". We note -- as I have here over the years -- that China is adopting a pragmatic policy on the climate. It's the biggest installer of solar and wind. But also has coal, gas and nuclear. I don't like the Xi regime. But I can recognise, and have recognised, when they do something sensible. Which is their climate policy. 
• Opponents shirk “responsibility” and mock individual choices (e.g., EVs, solar). 
• I don't see this on the conservative side. This is pure Straw Man.
• Opposition is purely “hyperbole and alarmism” from an “echo chamber” without credible alternatives. 
• I wonder, just who are the hyperbolic and alarmist, in this dispute. Surely it's the Net Zero proponensts, who keep repeating that "in xx years, or in year yyyy, it'll be all over, we'll be gone, wiped out. So we must do Net Zero immediately, no matter the cost". This is not an unfair characterisation by me. That's what we've heard over and over, since about... forever. 

Ad Hominem "arguments":

• Opponents of net zero are characterized as stuck in an “endless and futile culture war on energy.”
• They represent a “narrowing echo chamber in Australia’s right-wing media ecosystem.”
• Conservatives are accused of “bending and twisting their principles” to prove anti-net zero credentials.
• They “disrespect individual choices” (e.g., household demand for solar, batteries, EVs) and even “ridicule” them via “vapid culture wars.”
• Skeptics want Australia to “shirk responsibility” and be a “bad climate actor” like China.
• Opposition is driven by “cultural politics littered with philosophical contradictions,” showing “fundamental disrespect for the public will.”
• The mainstream right has “abrogated” the debate, implying intellectual cowardice or laziness.

Again, being ad hominem, none of these points, address the question. They simply smear the person. These are not arguments. They're .... well... ad hominem. 

I'll leave this for now. Just to repeat. That the "arguments" on the Net Zero in this debate are largely Straw Man and Ad Hominem. There is not a single serious fact-based argument. 

Aidan Morrison, otoh, does make an argument based on facts and figures. A few too many facts and figures for my taste, tbf.... Check it out, after 16:00 in the video above. 

Not sure why I should keep the whole transcript of the pro Net Zero dude, but I got it so may as well keep it. 

It's below the fold. Ed Cavanough: Thank you so much for having me. Great to see you all here this evening. Can I begin by acknowledging we're meeting on the lands of the Gadigal people and pay my respects to elders past, present, and emerging. 

Folks, my name is Ed Cavanough. I'm the CEO of the Menzies Institute and it's an honor generally to return to the Sydney Institute here today. Gerard, thank you for extending me this invitation and of course for all the work that you and Anne do here at the institute. It's much appreciated and Aidan, it's great to see you here and I'm looking forward to this conversation.

So Net Zero is a sprawling economy-wide mission. Rather than navigating the myriad bureaucratic technicalities of the task at hand, I wanted to use this opportunity to explain why Australia is on this policy path, explain why Australia is uniquely positioned to capitalize on a net zero economy around the world and also comment on how the opponents of net zero have in my view failed to articulate a credible alternate vision.

So in my view the issue of net zero is really characterized by two separate policy paths for the country 

... the one is a very optimistic path maybe an ambitious path where we have a much more complex economy where our mineral sector at home is adding value here at home, our energy sovereignty is enhanced where we lead and don't lag on one of the most important international issues of our time and when ultimately yes our environment and our climate is more stable and more predictable 

... and I think the alternative path is a path in which Australia is isolated on climate, is unbothered largely by what occurs beyond our shores, is stuck in this endless and futile culture war on energy, and that basically wants to spend the next 25 years dismantling the policy architecture that we've been arguing for and implementing over the last 25 years.

So tonight, I want to detail these choices and allow you to make up your mind about which of these paths is preferable. But first, I want to lay some very basic foundations.

So, you know, if you consume your news largely from Sky or from the Australian, you'll probably have been digesting what I describe as net zero alarmism. And that this is a view that says net zero basically means return to the stone ages. No industry, no flying, no cars, no mining, all of that. Now, this is of course an absolutist caricature of net zero. Net zero is undoubtedly ambitious and complicated, but you can't forget the net in the title. Australia's current policy is that by 2050, we'll be aiming for net zero carbon emission, which will be achieved by scaling clean energy and sequestering remaining emissions from the hard to abate sectors.

A net zero Australia in 2050 will still have emissions from fossil fuels, but this will ideally be occurring in the hardest to abate sectors like aviation and certain industrial activities and not in the easier to abate tasks like you know turning on a light bulb or charging your phone, driving a car around a city. Emissions would be much lower as close to zero as possible with offsets and sequestration ideally capturing as much of the remaining emissions from the atmosphere as possible. 

And there'd of course still be externalities on energy generation under net zero as there are today. But the objective is to mitigate the current externality that we're most concerned about that is high carbon emissions that's fueling anthropogenic climate change which I do want to briefly touch on because you know and I don't place Aidan in this category at all but there is certainly a persistent denialism about human induced climate change that does still inform this debate particularly on the right of Australian politics and it is important to state clearly that climate change isn't an issue of belief or ideology it's just one informed by evidence and ever-increasing consensus.

The planet won't be destroyed by climate change by 2050. But the historically unique pace of warming, which we're seeing at the moment, challenges the determinance of human flourishing and economic vitality upon which our civilization has grown. Now, I'm a pragmatist on this issue. I'm not an alarmist, but I think it's clear that this disruption is already costing livelihoods. And when it comes to Australia, these livelihoods are typically in the regions. And if you look at my home state of South Australia right now, as we speak, a quarter of the state's coastline is inundated with an algal bloom that on all preliminary scientific assessments is likely fueled in its intensity by warmer temperatures in the oceans. This is already costing jobs. And of course, we've seen things like this elsewhere in the 2022 floods in this state of New South Wales, which I reported on as a journalist repeatedly inundated communities with historically atypical intensity. 

So if you lived in Surry Hills around the corner, probably didn't bother you much. If you live in Narrabri, where in 2022 the Namoi flooded nine times well just about every 6 weeks, I can tell you the prospect of an even more disruptive climate is a real life threat not some political abstract. 

So it's already driving up insurance costs. It's already undermining investor certainty. floods and algal blooms and bushfires. You know, these have happened all throughout history, but the increasing intensity and cost of these events is certainly worth hedging against.

Now, there's many that say they don't deny these issues. It's just that Australia is too small to do anything about it. And I fundamentally reject this notion. I think it shrinks Australia. I think it basically says on issues of international importance, we shouldn't do anything even if these issues are affecting us at home. And if we applied such defeatist isolationism to any other international issue, we would rightly be outraged. But for climate skeptics, Australian isolationism appears to be a core objective. As the 14th biggest economy in the world, to say our transition is meaningless is defeatist, defeatist, and diminutive in the extreme.

Now, it's your right to not care about climate change. It doesn't bother me if that's your position. But under the weight of evidence, the majority opinion of both electorates and governments here in Australia and around the world disagree with you. There is a near global political consensus in favor of action informed by science. And Australia would be foolish to run against this consensus even if we didn't have opportunities in net zero. But fortunately, we do have opportunities in net zero and we have much to gain from that transition.

The first benefit is that net zero will enhance Australia's energy sovereignty. The alternative to net zero as far as I can understand is a future Australian economy dependent entirely on coal or largely on coal. Now coal has been essential to Australia's development. There are communities still depend on it. Still very important part of our economy. But fundamentally the domestic price of coal is subject to the global coal price which has about doubled in the past 20 years. Our domestic coal market is inextricably tethered to that global market. So it's fantastical to argue that by doubling down on coal generation at home, the input price would just be magically lowered. In fact, the only way that this vision for a low-cost coal-powered future would be realized is if Australia basically unhitched itself from this global market. if it simply diverted its exports to provide surplus cheap energy at home. But not only does this contradict the mainstream position on trade, it also undermines the investment logic on Australian coal which is largely export dependent. 89% of Australian black coal for example was exported in 2022-23.

So, as long as we're tethered to the global market prices of energy inputs like coal, but also LNG, also oil, our domestic energy prices will be shaped by global forces. And that basically means that, you know, anytime a foreign dictator gets involved in a war or there's a trade war that breaks out or the oil cartel run by the Saudis and the Venezuelans decides to pump up prices, we carry those price shocks here at home. You know, coal generation, you know, LNG supply and also at the petrol bowser. So none of these energy sources are going away tomorrow. But there is a strategic logic that lessening our dependence on these inputs even placing [the] issue of climate to one side makes sense. So diversifying our energy and making more cheaper wind, solar and firmed energy at home will enhance Australia's energy security in the long term, lessen our exposure to the global energy market volatility that we're seeing. And I think that is a good thing in an increasingly volatile world.

Now Australia also has a unique set of opportunities that will allow it to seize upon the broader global shift towards net zero. There is a growing global hunger for greener industrial outputs which Australia with its abundance on clean energy is in probably the best position in the world to pursue. Now that doesn't make that easy, but it doesn't mean that there's no future for it or that we should ignore this global market in the long run. And there's an opportunity that can see new value-adding industrial activity developed in Australia, supplying global markets that are embracing their own climate obligations, but also seeking to diversify away from the Chinese export market in particular.

And in terms of critical minerals that will supply the world's transition towards electrified cities and economies, Australia is in the box seat to provide that supply. We are a rare earth superpower and the demand for these minerals is skyrocketing. So the global pursuit of net zero which we can help shape delivers major opportunities for the Australian mineral sector and I think Australia can also leverage leadership on net zero to sustain meaningful global influence on this issue rather than running away from it.

So in my view there are practical strategic and economic reasons to embrace and to shape net zero. But to arrive at that conclusion, one must first consider the alternative pathway and opposition. And on that point, there is no credible alternative that's really being advanced.

Opposition to net zero has become a litmus test for those in conservative circles. And to me, this is a great shame because its centrality to conservative politics now trumps so many positions that conservative once held. Increasingly, this is a debate dominated by hyperbole and alarmism, each amplified by a narrowing echo chamber in Australia's right-wing media ecosystem. Once it was progressives who are out who are criticized often rightly for favoring protest over outcomes on the issue of energy and climate, this is now the conservative way. And those arguing that net zero has no future are often willing to bend and twist their principles to demonstrate their anti-net zero credentials.Now let me give a few examples. Firstly on China conservatives are often tie progressives governments to Beijing. But on energy all I hear is that we should be doing what China is doing. We get told that because China's a bad climate actor we have permission to be one too. that because China's doubling down on coal, we should too. Despite the increasing chest beating on the right about just about everything China does, it would appear that on the issue of climate, Beijing's policies are a source of inspiration.

On the issue of personal and national responsibility at the core of the Menzian political philosophy is the idea of responsibility both of the individual and of the nation. on climate. So many of today's conservatives want Australia to shirk responsibility. They reject the notion that Australia should aspire to lead and to shape a global issue. But they even disrespect individual choices in favor of green energy seen by household demand for solar and batteries and at the worst even ridicule individual choice by inventing vapid culture wars on issues like electric cars. So this is a politics that doesn't embrace responsibility, but it runs away from it and even mocks it.

And then there's a disrespect for the popular mandate. All polling overwhelmingly consistently shows Australians support climate action and net zero. So too has just about every election result in Australia, including the recent federal election. In South Australia, the Labor Party's ascendancy, for example, is aided and not hindered by its successes in clean energy. Yet, this electoral reality is being denied by an entire side of Australian politics, showing, I think, a fundamental disrespect for the public will.

Then on the issues of subsidies and government roles in markets, there are voices that on one day will say they're fundamentally opposed to government involvement in energy markets, but then on the other hand advocated for a nuclear policy which would have represented the largest nationalization project in Australian history.

There are those that look at energy subsidy programs today as evidence that clean energy doesn't stack up while ignoring the fact that much of our current coal generation was guided by the heavy hand of the state during an era of state-run energy networks.

So the opposition against net zero is really murky. It is just largely anti-net zero and it too often is informed by cultural politics littered with philosophical contradictions validated by strawman arguments and is deeply unambitious about Australia's capacity to do big and challenging things. And I think the abrogation of this debate by the mainstream right is a bad thing as it means there's less good faith debate around how we deliver on the ground a policy preference overwhelmingly backed by Australians.

I'll finish with just a comment on the 2050 date itself. Now we were talking about this before. My wife and I just had a young boy. He's only four months old born in April 2025. He'll probably be finishing uni by the time this date rolls around that we're talking about tonight. He'll just be 24 years old. And you know, one of the joys I think a lot of you would recognize when you have a kid is that it suddenly extends your time horizon all the way to the end of their life, not just the end of yours. 

And the point I'm simply making is that 2050 isn't far away at all. In the case of my kid, you know, you're thinking about his life in 50 or 70 or 80 years and he's suddenly well into the next century. Now, I don't think unchecked climate change will make Earth uninhabitable for him by then. I don't think the world will end by 2050 if we don't implement these policies. But I do think that an Australia that turns its back on both the opportunities and the obligations of the global decarbonization mission will be a much more challenging place to live than one that embraces for all of its difficulties this very epic ambitious task.

So I look forward to this discussion. 

Thanks for having me.