As Australians ready for the next federal election, likely to be held this coming May, they will go to the polls in a world being reshaped by climate change.
Fire, flood and energy costs have been at the forefront of voters’ minds over the past three years, and the nation requires its leaders to undertake a bold policy response to prevent worsening impacts on communities and the environment.
But according to Engineers Australia National President, Dr Nick Fleming FIEAust CPEng, neither of the major parties is bringing to the election a policy suited to the scale of the challenge.
“I think it’s pretty clear to everyone that both parties need to do better,” Fleming told create.
“And I say that because the responses don’t match the scale of the challenge, nor indeed do they match the scale of the opportunity.”
Scott Morrison’s incumbent Liberal–National coalition has promised to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, a commitment the Labor opposition already had in place. Labor, however, is seeking to reduce carbon emissions by 43 per cent before 2030, while the Coalition seeks a 28 per cent reduction.
Fleming, however, said that we should be thinking about more than reaching net zero.
“Net-zero matters, but net zero is a rate. At ‘net zero’, what we’re emitting in greenhouse gases and what we’re taking out is about the same. So the net increase is zero,” he said.
“But the other fundamental piece of that equation is a carbon budget. There’s a total amount of emissions that we can emit before we get into some pretty scary territory. We could get to net zero over 50 years, but in the process emit much more than we have within this budget.”
Neither party’s policy confronts that reality, Fleming said.
“The fastest, best way to get there is to use existing technologies that work — that we can deploy at scale — and that’s renewable energy,” he said.
“Hope is not a strategy. Hoping for some technological intervention or market intervention without supporting government policy is at best naïve and at worst grossly irresponsible.”
Clarity and certainty
When considering what policies he would like to see the parties take to the election, Fleming urged incentives to deploy renewables and other technologies at pace and scale.
“Different departmental policy agendas need to join up and be coherent — aiming in a common direction,” he said. “Policy clarity and certainty is critical for investment certainty … The rate at which we get deployment matters and therefore it would be a better public value and public policy outcome to incentivise deployment and find that you’d overshot the mark than to do nothing hoping that the market will respond.”
While failing to address rising emissions has devastating environmental consequences, there are other potential consequences as well, such as energy poverty or — as shown by the disruption to energy markets caused by Russia’s war in Ukraine — national security risks.
“We, as a nation, no longer produce much in the way of liquid fuels. And we don’t have many refineries. I think we have two left that are now government-sponsored, so our sovereign production capability is limited,” Fleming explained.
“So we’re vulnerable from a national security perspective in terms of our fuel supplies. And if national security was the only motivation to grow renewables and electrify our network you’d be doing it now, because we are vulnerable. The fact that’s not occurring, to me signals, quite frankly, a bit of incompetence.”
Authenticity and integrity
Looking beyond the next election, Fleming believes that the country will need leaders willing to tell the public tough truths.
“I think authenticity and integrity matter enormously,” he said. “We need the ability for authentic leadership with integrity to deal with complex issues. We need to be prepared to say to the public, ‘We don’t have all the answers, but we’ll find them.’”
And that outlook is one that demands engineers. But when he looks at the profession as a whole, Fleming believes it can do better. He would like to see engineers take a greater role in leading the way in the response to climate change.
“I’ve been working on sustainability and climate change in different engineering sectors for effectively a generation — 30 years. I listen to the climate discussions and debates today, and it sorely tests my patience,” he said.
“While we, as a profession, have been very good at meeting the requirements of standards or codes for design and contractual requirements … have we always fulfilled our ethical or social responsibilities? I think no.”
But, as Fleming described, the challenges of climate change also present engineers with big opportunities. These include the chance to develop Australia’s abundant renewable energy resources, as well as technologies for green aluminium, green steel, and hydrogen for export.
It also presents organisations and systems with an incentive to reimagine their approach to problem solving and find new efficiencies rather than following familiar patterns in their work. This is yet another reason engineering skills will increasingly matter to the climate transition.
“The first set of skills we need is our core strength, the traditional engineering skills,” Fleming said.
“That is, how do we deliver a piece of technology to deliver an outcome? Whether it’s hydrogen or renewable energy, or the transmission infrastructure and gas pipelines, it’s the core engineering skills we need coupled with an extra challenge — to achieve commercial viability at scale in a compressed time frame.”
But Fleming also believes it’s important to implement policies to build ‘soft’ skills in collaboration and complex problem solving across the entire engineering team and value chain, including clients and consultancies.
“I think that requires leadership from our profession, including Engineers Australia. But, again, we need governments to lead as well,” he said.
“Getting the outcomes we want and need as a nation requires collaboration and coherence in action. For example, we need alignment of policy around energy, tax regimes, R&D tax incentives, and skills and education policy. What I’m talking about is getting our business and government ecosystem set up to work together, to get the maximum return from every precious dollar that’s spent.”
Getting out of the comfort zone
A lot of these changes will be uncomfortable for some people and require new ways of working. Fleming, however, said that this discomfort will be necessary.
“We have to start talking about it and we have to start talking about it more openly and more candidly,” he said.
“I think we can also talk about it from a place of positivity and encouragement because yes, it’s a challenge, but we are a wealthy nation and can be a clever nation. We have the raw potential to make big, profitable, sustainable steps forward. We just have to stop ignoring the problems, hoping someone else will fix them. It’s time to get over ourselves, pull together, and get on with the job.”
Fleming’s article on both sides of politics falling short on climate change is just what we need, as a profession, as a community and as a country.
It is about time the engineering profession started to talk realistically about what we know: please let this be the start of a continuing message, not just a one-off.
Future messages might also contain other sustainability issues, such as species loss and social inequity: issues in their own right and also closely aligned with climate change: issues that will ring loudly with many sections of the public.
As Nick Fleming says, we need “to use existing technologies that work — that we can deploy at scale “— and that’s NOT renewable energy. At least, not on its own.
Come on Don BZE HAS shown that renewable energy can power Australia own its own. Read their Zero Carbon Australia Plans. Simples mate!
“The fastest, best way to get there is to use existing technologies that work — that we can deploy at scale — and that’s a combination of nuclear and renewable energy,” Fleming might have said.
Many other countries are now moving in this direction. However I except that this may take Engineers Australia a step too far beyond its current comfort zone and advocacy leadership capabilities within our community.
Liberal democratic governance in Australia is broken and needs significant change. Politicians from all persuasions have demonstrated by their actions that the majority are only in the business for personal power and financial gain. Big business also has a lot to answer.
Climate policy is but just one of the issues which requires immediate action. But so does health care, aged care, education, housing, integrity, essential infrastructure and above all the disgraceful and unsustainable increase in wealth of those who already have so much. But of course any government who would make the necessary changes to the taxation system would immediately lose power and be relegated to opposition.
Thank goodness I am in my twilight years. Australia is certainly not the country I emigrated to more than fifty years ago.
So, it appears that EA is censoring any comments that it feels don’t follow the “climate change narrative” it is preaching? As a member of EA are not my opinions as valid as anyone else? Apparently not. My recent negative comment on the President’s comments have not/will not? be published, but others as above will be? This stinks. I also made very strong criticisms of EA inviting Al Gore to their CC conference last year, but despite promises someone would respond to my comments I have had NO response. Clearly the left’s run through our institutions has also befallen EA, more’s the pity!!!
Why can’t we have some honest discussion on all issues around “climate change”. The science very much is not settled!!
Mike Long
Mike,
Well said.
The sub title of this article should read “..in a world being reshaped by climate alarmism!”.
Like you, I was disgusted that a once respected professional organisation could invite a fraudster such as Al Gore to its energy talk fest.
Time for EA to get back to scientific endeavour’s based on technology rather than politics and philosophical positions.
This is not about “the left” or “the right” Mike… It is about science. And you are wrong – climate science may never be “settled” as you state. But the evidence and the historical evolution of the science underpinning global heating and consequent climate disruption is now so clear and supported by 99% of the atmospheric and climate science community. It is not for us engineers to fight amongst ourselves over “opinions” on the science. We must show leadership in solving the crisis.
Excellent call for action Nick. About time EA got stuck into politicians ignoring the science and called Climate Change and Biodiversity Loss the real Emergency that it is for the world. Our Government is committing billions of dollars to secure Australia from an “Arc of Autocracy” somewhere in the Northern Hemisphere far from us, but commits nothing to address the greatest existential threat we humans have ever faced. And, Australia is the most vulnerable country in the world facing the climate crisis. Our unprecedented weather events of the past few years have shown clearly that climate change is here, and now, and dangerous.
And you’re right, we do not have to wait for some unknown future technology to address the emergency. As BZE has clearly shown in its many Zero Carbon Australia Plans we can do this now and we can do it quickly. All we need is leadership! If we engineers can rise up and show that leadership, politicians will have to follow….
Suggest everyone read and pass on the open letter from The Australian Security Leaders Climate Group at:
The link: https://www.aslcg.org/open-letter/
On 22 Feb 2019 Dr Jiang Kejung (Director China Energy Research Institute) delivered China’s energy strategy at an Energy Policy Institute of Australia seminar. The strategy features 500GW of nuclear power by 2050, alongside some expansion of renewable energy. The plan is rational, economical, scalable & deployment-ready. I understand that detailed engineering construction and planning is already well underway for the first 200GW of nuclear power plant. Air quality control was the original driver and a very well thought out “no loser policy” was developed for the phasing out of coal.
I wonder if the writers of the open letter from the Australian Security Leaders Climate Group understand all of the implications of that when they advocate that Australia should move to a totally unreliable or hugely expensive power supply grid.
Thank you, Mike for putting into words my thoughts and feelings more bravely and eloquently than I could myself. I suspect we are not the only one that feel this way either.
I despair at the “wokeness” on display at EA. If it wasn’t for the CPEng post-nominal, I would question the value of ongoing membership in the organisation.
Where are the comments from our Electrical Engineers? I’m Civil, so have limited knowledge. But here in SA on a hot windless night with air cons running flat out, I can’t see how renewables can deliver. Also with electric vehicles on long trips. Recharging takes 20 mins +. So if there is a queue, will this work and can the transmission lines cope? On a world level, what about the Parento principal? China, US and India emit over 50% of greenhouse gases. India didn’t even send a rep to Glasgow!! So why are we so paranoid? Can our Electrical College give a balanced view please.
Very well said Mike & Paul, I concur with your comments and responded yesterday but my comments can’t have been woke enough to be published.
The sub heading of this article should have been ” in a world being reshaped by climate ALARMISM”
I am totally disillusioned with EA’s adoption of ideology over true science
but am encouraged y members like ikea & Paul.
Victor
Baseload electric power generation is essential for stability, reliability and control of the power grid. Wind and solar are intermittent and uncontrollable and cannot produce baseload power. Batteries also cannot provide baseload power as they form a massive load during the day while being charged and thus cannot provide 24 hour per day discharge. Baseload power has to constantly compensate for the peaks and dips from solar and wind generation as well as the changing electricity demand. No baseload power means no electricity supply. Without substantial baseload power, the whole system would collapse. We must go nuclear and build more hydro if we want emissions free baseload power.
If we don’t retain baseload power, net zero emissions will become net zero electricity.
I’ve done some basic math to figure out if we could all drive electric vehicles and recharge them with solar energy. I conclude that it is easily possible. However we need to couple the increase in electric power consumption with an increase in electricity supply. More importantly, we need to be able to charge during the day, when most of our cars are at where we work. I calculated that this would cost around $600 -700 billion for the around 19 million cars that apparently drive around in Australia. This is based on current cost of solar panels, chargers, and the price difference of electric vehicles over comparable IC engine cars. The big question is, who is going to fork out this money? In my calcs I conclude it is most cost effective if the expense is shared between employers and employees 50/50. If we managed to pull this off, personal transportation would be completely weaned of oil. Since personal transport amounts to about 25% of total transport energy consumption, this goes a long way to achieve a 28% reduction in fossil fuel use. We would also no longer need coal or gas power stations for peak demand, as this would all come out of the huge battery capacity of the electric cars. However, none of this is going to happen without a comprehensive plan, as the electricity providers and vehicle owners need to be on board for their cars to be used this way. Much more appears to happen on state level than federal. I think the issue will ultimately resolve itself, as most of the car industry has actually committed to go all electric, but we have a chance to be pro-active before everyone plugs in their new EVs, and we all wonder why the grid collapses. Even Toyota seems to have switched from the fuel cell hydrogen approach to battery electric. It’s a no brainer, since one would have to build twice as many wind-and solar supply for everyone to drive on hydrogen due to the lower efficiency of the process. Hydrogen makes only sense for long haul transport.