But we’re only a tiny part of the problem!

Featured

The bankrupt philosophy underpinning the Morrison Doctrine

By David Salt

Seven suited powerbrokers sit in an air-conditioned board room discussing the morality of their business. Unfortunately, for them, their bank has been caught putting profits before people in manner which breaks the law and deemed morally repugnant. What are they to do?

David Pope, one of Australia’s leading political cartoonists, imagined what might have gone on in that boardroom. He suggested in his daily cartoon (in The Canberra Times, 24 November 2019) that maybe they could hide behind the argument of relativity: that their bank’s illegal money transactions were just a tiny fraction of the global total and that doing something different wouldn’t change the “child exploitation climate in the Philippines one jot”.

Of course, Pope was using the Westpac debacle to throw a light on the Australian Government’s hypocrisy in relation to our nation’s carbon emissions, something that is quite unmissable because he labelled this cartoon ‘the Morrison Doctrine’. That’s because Prime Minister Morrison used pretty much the same argument in defending his party’s approach to climate change. He said:

“Climate change is a global phenomenon and we’re doing our bit as part of the response to climate change – we’re taking action on climate change. But I think to suggest that at just 1.3% of emissions, that Australia doing something more or less would change the fire outcome this season – I don’t think that stands up to any credible scientific evidence at all.”
Prime Minister Scott Morrison*, in The Guardian

To paraphrase, the Morrison Doctrine says that our ‘sin’ is but a small part of the overall ‘sin’ and doing something about our sin wouldn’t make much difference to the global total. The unstated part of this train of logic is: therefore, we needn’t bother because doing something will cost us.

The Morrison Doctrine: Image by David Pope, courtesy of The Canberra Times

The Doctrine fails for some sins

Pope’s cartoon is a fabulous parody of our Prime Minister’s defence and it’s worthy of reflection on several levels.

First, the Morrison Doctrine didn’t work for Westpac. The bank’s CEO at the time, was reported to have told staff that mainstream Australians were not overly concerned about what had happened.

“This is not a major issue,” he said. “So, we don’t need to overcook this.”

But, as it turned out, he was dead wrong. Mainstream Australia was appalled at the behaviour of Westpac and within days our political leaders had sensed this and joined in with the mob calling for heads to roll.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison said “these are some very disturbing transactions involving despicable behaviour”. Attorney-General Christian Porter said “this is as serious as it ever gets”, while Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton accused Westpac of giving “a free pass to paedophiles!”

Westpac’s share price plummeted, its CEO resigned and its Chairman brought forward his retirement.

So, in the case or Westpac and the Morrison Doctrine, ‘our little sin’ did count. Not doing anything (or much) was simply unacceptable and believing otherwise was a hanging offence.

But the Doctrine works for the Government

I think the reason the Pope cartoon stuck with me is because of the many questions raised by Westpac’s corporate failure compared to our government’s failure on climate change. The big question is: Why is the Westpac sin seen as an unacceptable moral failure (for which the board must be held accountable) when no-one is held accountable for the policy failure on limiting carbon emissions?

There are many answers to this: the Westpac failure was well documented and the lines of accountability crystal clear; whereas the climate failure is global in scale, complex and it’s very challenging to hold individual people, institutions or governments directly accountable.

The Westpac failure followed on shortly after the Banking Royal Commission which exposed the corrupt heart beating behind so many bank practices so the broader community was already sensitised (and outraged) by corporate malpractice. The Westpac malpractice gave us a target to vent our sense of injustice on.

And the Westpac failure indirectly involved possible sex trafficking and exploitation of children, a moral crime deemed unacceptable by society; whereas conservative governments everywhere are framing climate change as an economic issue and doing their best to discount the moral consequences of inaction. Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, for example, summed it up best at the Liberal’s recent electoral victory when he said “Where climate change is a moral issue we Liberals do it tough. Where climate change is an economic issue, as tonight shows, we do very, very well.”

A tiny part of the problem (?)

But maybe the reason Pope’s cartoon got me thinking so much was because it played on one of the central articles of the climate denialist’s cant: that humans have only added a little to the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere which in themselves are only trace gases. A little on a little surely can’t be the problem the scientists are saying, can it (and definitely not something worth sacrificing economic growth for)?

Well, it depends. The science says it matters enormously. The science says little changes to the atmosphere fundamentally shifts the Earth system. However, setting aside the scientific consensus, a little sin might be completely unacceptable when it involves transgressing community norms like the sex trafficking of children.

But this ‘little sin’ of economic growth heedless of the consequences is drowning the little children of low lying Pacific islands? It’s also destroying the livelihoods of all those families that depend on the ongoing health of the Great Barrier Reef? This little sin is pushing the climate to the point where it undermines our food security.

“There has to be some understanding of accountability for when these things happen.” These aren’t my words, they are Scott Morrison’s but he was referring to the Westpac failure, not his own on climate change.

*Australia’s little bit: whenever anyone says to you Australia is pulling its weight in producing only 1.3% of global emissions (as our PM constantly does) politely point out at only 0.3% of the global population we are the highest per capita emitters in the developed world.

Main image: Image by cinelina from Pixabay

Doing the Tesla Stretch

Featured

Electric cars to our economic rescue (with a nudge from government)

By Peter Burnett

New car sales are flat. In Australia we’ve just had the 17th consecutive month of declining sales. Of course, sales do go up and down and there are many reasons for the current dip including tight lending for cars and low consumer confidence.

Sales are also flat in other countries including the United Kingdom, but some commentators are advancing explanations far more significant than tight money and low consumer confidence. For example, the online newsletter MarketsInsider is suggesting that the US may have already passed ‘peak car’ due to generational and disruptive factors such as debt-strapped millennials, ride-hailing apps and self-driving technology.

I don’t know if being debt-strapped is the only factor for millennials, as my own millennial progeny give me the clear sense that cars just don’t have the allure that they did for me and my fellow baby-boomers. But quibbling aside, it seems clear that such disruptive factors are at work.

A Tesla for the market

I also suspect there may be another disruptive factor operating, a by-product of the ‘Tesla Stretch’. The Tesla Stretch refers to the fact that buyers are so keen to have a pure-electric car (ie, a battery-electric vehicle, or ‘BEV’, not a hybrid) that they are willing to pay around $30,000 more than they would normally spend on a new car. People who would never consider buying an entry-level BMW or Mercedes are paying BMW and Mercedes-like prices for the privilege of owning a Tesla, or at least a BEV.

The so-called ‘mass market’ Tesla, the Tesla Model 3, has only just gone on sale in Australia. In fact, the wider market for electric vehicles is only just getting off the ground here and it will be at least another 12 months before fully-electric vehicles are available here in any numbers and at least another couple after that before the cost of an electric vehicles begins to achieve price-parity with conventional internal combustion engine (‘ICE’: don’t you love these acronyms?) vehicles.

Although it’s too early to tell whether the Tesla Stretch will be a real thing here or not, there’s no reason to think Australians will be any different to Americans or Europeans in this regard. Moreover, I think the Tesla Stretch is already having an indirect impact here and that the current drop in car sales is partly the result of its by-product, which might be called the ‘Tesla Strike’.

A Tesla Strike?

The Tesla Strike would be a form of ‘buyers strike’, in which buyers want a BEV but, because they are not readily available, or not available at an affordable price, decide to wait. This flash of insight has come to me because I am one such buyer. My current car is about due for replacement and I’m keen to reduce my environmental footprint. I also like new technology (and cars, although this feels like admitting to being a dinosaur).

In principle, I’m prepared to do the Tesla Stretch, at least to some degree, but none of the handful of BEVs available so far meets my needs and fits my price-range. So, I’ve decided that my current car is my last ICE vehicle and that I’ll just wait.

In a small market like Australia there wouldn’t have to be too many more people like me out there for the Tesla Strike to be a ‘thing’, a phenomenon affecting sales and thus the economy, and calling for policy attention from government. The Government could act to increase the supply of electric cars by removing barriers to market entry, for example by streamlining the certification of electric cars for sale in Australia, introducing training programs in servicing electric cars, or subsidising the installation of recharging infrastructure, anything that would signal to electric car manufacturers that if they commit to supplying us, we’ll commit to giving this technology a long-term future.

Direct subsidies to car buyers might be one policy option but this may not be as effective as removing barriers to market entry. This is because simply increasing demand in the short term, without more, may not give manufacturers an incentive to establish sales and servicing networks here when there is already more than enough demand in larger markets for the BEVs currently available.

Wouldn’t it be ironic if governments, having so far baulked at spending on an electric car transition as an environmental measure, decided to do so as an economic measure?

As a bonus, oil imports would begin to go down, as would carbon emissions, increasingly so as ever-cheaper renewable energy replaces fossil-fuel power in our electricity network.

Ironic or not, for a government focused on the economy, Tesla Stretch surely beats Tesla Strike.

Image by Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay