5 Crucial Climate Questions Australians Need Answers to Before Election Day | Insights by Adam Morton

With a national election on the horizon, discussions in Canberra are heating up, especially regarding the federal budget. Just a couple of weeks ago, a tropical cyclone forced these conversations to take center stage. Climate change and environmental issues seem to be sidelined, even though they should be crucial parts of the debate during this election cycle.

Many Australians are left wondering about major environmental decisions that are lurking on the horizon. Here are some pressing questions that voters are anxious to see addressed before they cast their ballots.

One hot topic is gas, which has recently become part of the Coalition’s energy agenda. Nationals leader David Littleproud has suggested that a government led by Peter Dutton would “flood gas into the grid” to help lower energy and food prices. However, it remains unclear how increasing gas supply will actually reduce costs for consumers. Experts point out that Australia’s gas is mostly exported, which means local prices are dictated by global rates. The situation has worsened over the past decade due to factors like the opening of the Gladstone liquefied natural gas hub and geopolitical tensions such as the conflict in Ukraine. This has made gas one of Australia’s costliest energy sources.

Interestingly, there’s talk of a domestic gas reservation policy, meaning companies would need to allocate some gas for local use. While this approach has seen success in Western Australia, experts warn that many of the cheaper gas sources are already tapped out. The Coalition’s advocates for gas expansion seem to echo industry claims, but what’s missing is concrete evidence that local consumers will benefit.

Another significant issue is the state of Australia’s environmental laws. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese had initially pledged to strengthen these laws through an overhaul of the 25-year-old Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. However, recent pressure from the industry has led to delays and further complications. The government’s promise to introduce a national Environment Protection Agency (EPA) is now uncertain, which has conservationists worried about future fossil fuel projects in sensitive areas.

Albanese argues that job creation is his priority, citing that certain endangered species, like the Maugean skate, are “bouncing back.” However, it’s important to consider that even if their numbers are rising, they were already classified as endangered years ago. No clear policies are yet in place, leaving many in the community concerned about the environmental impact of proposed developments.

Meanwhile, Dutton has criticized the current environmental system, claiming it’s inadequate. However, many experts disagree with this sentiment, referencing reviews that highlight significant failings in the existing framework. Are the leaders prepared to back up their claims with solid data, or is this just rhetoric to win favor with constituents?

Shifting focus back to gas, both major parties have justified increasing gas exports, claiming it contributes to global emissions reduction by replacing coal. However, a recent U.S. study suggests that emissions from liquefied natural gas may be higher than those from coal. This raises questions about the validity of the argument and leaves consumers wondering if they are truly moving towards a greener future.

As we look to the future, questions about emission reductions remain largely unanswered. The Coalition seems poised to retract previous climate commitments, while Labor, which has ambitions for a more progressive stance, has also stalled on setting a specific emissions target for 2035, waiting for delayed advice from the Climate Change Authority.

While some experts argue that postponing such discussions could minimize election-time political backlash, it ultimately leaves voters in the dark about what policies they might support. The upcoming election will hinge not only on immediate concerns but also on the longer-term implications for Australia’s energy landscape and environmental policies.

The Coalition’s current approach doesn’t offer a comprehensive plan for emissions reduction until the mid-2040s, raising concerns about their commitment to a sustainable future. Moreover, Dutton’s nuclear policy lacks clarity or detail, and if it leads to an expansion of fossil fuel use or delays renewable energy adoption, this could have dire consequences for both consumer costs and environmental impact.

As Australia heads toward an election, voters deserve detailed plans and transparent policies from both major parties. It’s time to move past vague promises and focus on actionable solutions for the economy, energy security, and the environment, ensuring that Australia is prepared for the challenges of the future.

For additional insights into the state of Australia’s environmental policies, consult the latest reports from the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water or insights from the Samuel review of the EPBC Act.

Check out this related article: US Supreme Court Dismisses Pivotal Climate Lawsuit by Young Oregonians: What It Means for the Future of Environmental Justice