Who's winning the climate war? Australia.
'The wars are on, but the good guys are winning them more,' Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen told me ahead of Albanese reappointing him to his post last week, after his Labor Party won its largest majority in 80 years.
Climate does not generally win elections — but it can help lose them, as demonstrated by four previous Australian prime ministers and the Greens' recent losses in the EU. More often, it simply becomes a partisan cudgel, as in the United States, where Republicans are fast dismantling the Biden administration's clean-energy agenda after Democrats failed to defend it in the 2024 election.
Advertisement
So the fact that Albanese became Australia's first prime minister in 20 years to serve a full term and win another in part on his climate agenda is worth unpacking, even for politicians and energy leaders who have never heard of Warringah or Kooyong. His trajectory holds lessons for not only how to win on climate-friendly energy policies, but how to hold power while executing on them.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump's EPA Reportedly Wants to Remove Limits on Tailpipe Emissions
"Hearst Magazines and Yahoo may earn commission or revenue on some items through these links." A new draft plan is reportedly going to unwind the EPA's ruling that greenhouse gases are a public health issue. If passed, the federal agency's ability to enforce restrictions on automakers could be limited in the future. The plan would overturn official EPA policy that has been in place since 2009. A newly drafted plan from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), said to be days away from going public, aims to strip the agency's ability to limit greenhouse gases. According to reporting from the New York Times, the draft proposal rescinds a 2009 declaration that carbon dioxide and methane emissions are hazardous to public health. If verified and passed, such a proposal presents further headwinds to EV adoption and also removes limits on tailpipe emissions. The ruling would also affect industrial pollution, but as far as the automotive industry is concerned, it would remove carbon emission limitations as a target for automakers. With fines for CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) violations largely eliminated and federal rebates for EV purchases gone, this new change could continue to change the course of domestic car manufacturing. Long-term, such a change would limit the EPA's authority to enforce rules aimed at limiting climate change. The proposed draft is said not to argue with the science regarding greenhouse gas emissions, but rather it states that the EPA has legally overstepped its authority. It seeks to limit the EPA's ability to legislate except in specific circumstances. There are several steps to be taken before such a change occurs, not least of which are various legal hurdles. If enacted, the new plan would almost certainly face challenges from various sources. It also has to weather some form of public review. It took two years for the EPA to officially label greenhouse gases as a public health issue after a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that they were pollutants under the Clean Air Act. Unwinding this finding may take a similarly long timeline. If you are in the automaking business, however, it's fairly straightforward to see which way the winds are blowing. For the near future, investing in combustion-powered transportation is likely to be the safe bet. You Might Also Like Car and Driver's 10 Best Cars through the Decades How to Buy or Lease a New Car Lightning Lap Legends: Chevrolet Camaro vs. Ford Mustang!
Forbes
5 hours ago
- Forbes
World Court's Climate Change Opinion Could Alter Sustainability Reporting Debate
Judges are seated as the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Netherlands, opens hearings ... More into what countries worldwide are legally required to do to combat climate change and help vulnerable nations fight its devastating impact, Monday, Dec. 2, 2024. (AP Photo/Peter Dejong) After over two years of proceedings, the International Court of Justice released its Advisory Opinion relating to the Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change on July 23. The Court found that large GHG emitting countries, like the United States, must take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including those of private business. While not directly addressing sustainability reporting, advocates will invoke the opinion to argue nations must implement reporting standards to monitor and force businesses to reduce GHG emissions. The ICJ was established in 1945 through the UN Charter to handle legal disputes between nations. Known as the World Court, it is an outlet for countries to settle civil disputes through a neutral court. The ICJ is composed of 15 judges elected by the UNGA and UN Council to serve a term of nine years. A country may only have one judge serving on the ICJ at a time. On March 29, 2023, at the request of Vanuatu, the UN General Assembly asked the ICJ to issue an advisory opinion on the legal obligations of countries in preventing climate change. The opinion, while non-binding, gives an indicator of how the Court may interpret future climate related litigation and guide future legislative development. Following two years of proceedings, including both written and oral statements, the Court issued its opinion, and a shorter summary of the opinion, on July 23. The 140 page opinion primarily focuses on interpreting obligations under existing climate treaties, including the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol, and the Paris Agreement. It also looked at a recent opinion by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea that found climate change obligations exist in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Finally, it considered customary international law. The court found that countries are obligated to take action to reduce GHG gas emissions. Failure to act could result in large GHG emitting countries owing reparations to smaller countries for the adverse impacts of climate change. Opening the door to a wave of litigation before the ICJ as developing countries seek compensation. Notably, these obligations do not arise exclusively from the Paris Agreement or the UNFCCC. The Court rejected arguments made by large countries, including the United States, Australia, and Germany, that the creation of a treaty that specifically addresses climate change overrides any other international law on the subject. This is known as lex specialis. The Court found a 'duty to prevent significant harm to the environment' exists under customary international law. The Court's rejection of lex specialis effectively renders Trump's exit from the Paris Agreement as moot when it comes to liability. The court established liability in two parts, or elements. "The main elements of the obligation of prevention in the context of protection of the climate system are (a) the environmental harm to be prevented and (b) due diligence as the required standard of conduct.' Looking at sustainability reporting, the relevant obligations are found in paragraphs 281 and 282 of the opinion, addressing the due diligence requirement. Quoting the ITLOS opinion, the ICJ stated that countries are required to The opinion then applied the standard to climate change. Sustainability advocates will use that obligation to argue that countries must enact sustainability reporting requirements. Sustainability reporting, and the broader environmental, social, and governance reporting, requires companies to disclose GHG emissions through financial statements. For now, sustainability reporting regulations only require companies to provide information. They do not require businesses to reduce GHG emissions. However, once the information is publicly available, advocates and interested nations can use that information to force companies to reduce emissions through regulatory action and the courts. As the European Union debates significant reductions to the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, expect advocates to argue the changes violate the ICJ opinion. Similar arguments will arise in other jurisdictions around the world. However, the debate is political and the opinion is not legally binding. Countries and their elected leaders will choose whether or not to acknowledge the opinion. Application will come through the courts.
Geek Wire
6 hours ago
- Geek Wire
Trump's mega bill blasted by Washington leaders: Clean energy cuts threaten AI boom, hike costs
Participants in a Seattle roundtable on the Republican-led repeal of clean energy tax credits, from left: Gregg Small, executive director of Climate Solutions; Brandon Provalenko, general manager of Western Solar; Sen. Patty Murray; Dawn Lindell, CEO of Seattle City Light; Joe Nguyen, director of the Washington State Department of Commerce; and Christine Reid, political director of IBEW Local 77. The event was held July 25 at the Seattle City Light Denny Substation. (GeekWire Photo / Lisa Stiffler) As energy demand spikes due to AI-driven data center expansions and the shift to electrification of transportation and other sectors, a sweeping bill signed this month by President Trump cuts resources for deploying renewable power, Washington state leaders said Friday. Washington Sen. Patty Murray convened a roundtable in Seattle on Friday to highlight the potential energy impacts of the 'Big Beautiful Bill' and issue a call to action. She warned of rising utility costs for businesses and residents and lost jobs in the energy sector. 'It's going to set us back in terms of our access to clean energy,' Murray said. 'It's so important that people know why this is coming and that we continue to raise our voices to fight back.' Joe Nguyen, director of the state's Department of Commerce, was blunt in his criticism of the bill in a GeekWire interview following the roundtable. 'This is a direct attack on tech,' Nguyen said. 'Without clean energy, we don't have technology.' That's particularly true, he added, as companies such as Amazon and Microsoft are building out capacity to meet AI demands. The Pacific Northwest is already home to numerous data center facilities, with plans to build more. In Washington alone, the Republican-backed bill could decrease electric capacity by 18 gigawatts over the next decade — or the equivalent of two Seattles' worth of energy — said Gregg Small, executive director of Climate Solutions, speaking at the event. Commerce Director Joe Nguyen addresses Sen. Patty Murray during the roundtable on clean energy. (GeekWire Photo / Lisa Stiffler) The legislation repeals tax cuts for renewable power efforts including wind and solar installations that were included in the Democrats' 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. At the same time, the GOP measure bolsters support for fossil fuel power. President Trump staunchly defends the nixing of benefits for wind and solar, calling the intermittent power sources 'unreliable,' and even some critics of the president acknowledge that tax cuts for renewable power should phase out over time. Others say the support makes sense to get new energy deployed as quickly as possible. Renewable power made up 93% of the U.S. energy capacity that came online last year. 'Even if you're pro-fossil fuels, pro-coal, that is very expensive and it takes a long time to build. And also, the market is not demanding that right now,' Nguyen told GeekWire. The data center tech giants — also called hyperscalers — are seeking clean power sources given that they've set ambitious goals for shrinking their carbon impacts. The AI boom is making it increasingly difficult to reach their targets, with Microsoft and Amazon both reporting rising carbon emissions. At the same time, Trump this week announced his 'AI Action Plan' to accelerate data center growth in the U.S. and support America's leadership in AI. Clean energy advocates say there's a disconnect between those ambitions and policy that limits options for new power. 'For us to be leaders in that [AI] space, it requires hyperscalers. It requires energy for those hyperscalers,' Nguyen said. 'So limiting the amount of energy we can produce is counterintuitive in terms of trying to be a dominant player in the AI space.'
