Opinion
Energy

The Coalition tries to compartmentalise the drought from the energy debate. But the public doesn’t buy it

Back in the days when we thought the world would be obliterated in a nuclear conflict, there was a coarse metaphor to describe the build-up of arms in the name of deterrence. It was along the lines of “fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity”.*
Australian politics is currently gripped by a similar logic inversion, with the elected representatives of drought-affected farmers going to the barricades to fight for coal.
Seriously. Today in the Coalition party room National party MPs, including their fallen leader, set a government owned coal-fired power station as their price for supporting the government’s admittedly deficient framework to manage the transition to a lower carbon economy.
They did so with a belligerent disregard for the warnings of scientists that the ongoing reliance on coal as an energy source is a key driver of the sorts of extreme weather events that are right now threatening the livelihoods of their constituents.
Wiped of the technical speak and acronyms, the scenario is stark. The government will only support an energy market transition if it means burning more coal. Like screwing for virginity.
Of course, there is no mention of the drought in these deliberations – that is another line item on the agenda where the National party plaintively demands more taxpayer funds to support the drought-affected farmers; surely humanity’s most worthy welfare recipients.
An argument that the drought and energy debate shouldn’t be connected is shielded by the fig-leaf that when there is a tragedy – bushfire, flood or drought – there is something blasphemous about “politicising” an act of God by pointing to the scientific consensus that human-induced climate change is a factor.
That quaint little convention though seems to be coming to an end, with growing numbers of citizens who endure these unnatural disasters willing to speak out. We saw it after the Tathra bushfires and more recently the Queensland drought.
The Greens have been copping it for some time for making the link; now opposition leader Bill Shorten, fresh from a trip to the drought affected areas, is weighing into the story too – making the link explicit while seconding a motion from the PM in support of drought victims.
According to this week’s Essential Report those prepared to draw the link and reflect the zeitgeist; a majority of people think the link is likely, just a quarter think it unlikely.
Those most likely to think it is linked to climate change were unsurprisingly Greens voters and Labor voters. Coalition voters were more tightly split while it was only supporters of the conservative minor parties who dismiss the link. University educated and younger voters are also more likely to join the dots (go figure).
This is not to say there is ill will towards the farmers; there is strong public support for government subsidies. But what is notable in a separate question is the other really popular government subsidy is for the renewable sector, the very energy sources the Neg will disadvantage.
Australia’s last major drought was in 2007 and it was a game-changer for conservative climate politics. It was the moment when the impacts of climate change became real and the then prime minister John Howard was forced to reluctantly discard his scepticism and accept an emissions trading scheme under the weight of public expectation.
Ever since then the Coalition policy has been driven by political pragmatism, doing just enough to meet the demands of the day. Howard later recanted his commitment, Turnbull traded in his resolve for political power while Tony Abbott has now bizarrely claimed to have been bullied into action.
With another drought now setting an external context for energy policy, the Nationals desperately tried to portray today’s meeting as being about energy prices, energy security, anything but the actual point of the exercise.           
But in turning a blind eye to the long-term impact of their actions they open themselves up to the accusation that they have sold out their people in the name of their passionate, yet unrequited, love of coal.
The Nationals are violating the very people they claim to have fidelity for. They are screwing for virginity.
* Just to pre-empt the comments section, yes, Reagan sent the Soviet Union bankrupt through the build-up of nuclear arms. And yes, the Big One never blew. But today there are estimated 15,000 nuclear warheads with new regimes joining the nuclear club on a regular basis. The world doesn’t feel that peaceful.
• Peter Lewis is the executive director of Essential and a Guardian Australia columnist