PETER VAN ONSELEN: UN climate boss makes LUDICROUS claim about daily habit Aussies will be forced to give up because of warming - turning off the very people he needs to win over

Daily Mail​

4 days ago

When Simon Stiell, the UN's top climate official, warns Australians that unless we lift our game on emissions, fruit and veggies will become 'a once-a-year treat', you know he's jumped the shark.
That kind of rhetoric may stir applause from activists who are already won over to the climate cause, but it risks turning off the very people who weigh up what practical action should look like.
You don't have to be a climate change denier to fall into that category. Climate change is real, most people accept that. The science is sound, people know that too. The dangers posed by a warming planet are therefore not to be underestimated.
But packaging the argument in short term apocalyptic headlines doesn't strengthen the cause, it weakens it.
It sounds like activism, not expert analysis, and that distinction matters.
When the debate becomes saturated with worst case scenarios and doom-laden predictions, most people dismiss those who deliver inflated rhetoric as lacking credibility.
Stiell might believe he's spurring governments into action, but for mainstream voters, the ones who decide elections, this sort of messaging can feel more like an old fashioned guilt trip.
It becomes counterproductive to the cause.
Australia is preparing to update its 2035 emissions reduction target right when the Labor government has ambitions to co-host a global climate summit.
And the UN's climate tsar seems to think fresh alarmism will spur Labor into more action.
But that will not be the case if his sensationalising makes the government look like its plans are rooted in activism.
Younger voters tend to be more inclined to listen to the alarmism, but the electorate is broader than one generation still finding their feet in life.
The case for serious emissions reduction is strong, but it must be made with rigour. Suggesting fresh produce will become a luxury good - or that living standards are set to collapse without dramatic policy shifts in Australia - makes for a good headline but is poor public engagement.
It risks framing climate policy as a punitive exercise rather than an economic and technological opportunity. It also ignores the reality that Australia is a very small emitter on the global stage even if our per capita emissions are too high.
What we do, or don't do, matters little if the likes of China and India don't do much more than they currently are. There are plenty of nations in greater need of lectures than we are.
Australians aren't oblivious to climate risks, but they are wary of poor policies, broken promises and emissions targets that are often costly and don't get met anyway. Voters want action that's credible, not utopian and dreamy.
They also want costed plans, not alarmist lectures, especially in the context of rising energy prices and concerns about reliability.
The Coalition is already highlighting the economic burden of the government's major emissions reduction policy - known as the safeguard mechanism - and other net zero policies. The public will want proper answers to a problem - not simplistic fear mongering.
The credibility of climate action depends on public trust. That means being transparent about costs and benefits, about timelines, trade-offs and targets. It means avoiding exaggerated claims that can't be sustained if the short-term doesn't mirror the long-term projection.
Just because opponents of climate action use fear and verbosity is no reason for advocates who claim to be on the side of science to dash their credibility by returning fire.
If the government wants to be taken seriously at home and abroad, it should focus less on emotionally charged appeals and more on policy design that builds confidence.
There's merit in the idea of setting ambitious targets with built-in flexibility, allowing for adjustments as new technology develops and economic conditions change.
That's the kind of thinking that builds consensus and keeps momentum going. Those urging rapid decarbonisation, net zero within a decade, or 65 per cent emissions cuts by 2035 need to ground their calls in practical pathways. Without them, they risk pushing the conversation to the fringes.
There's nothing wrong with urgency, but it should be channelled into persuading the undecided rather than trying to pressure them.
If Stiell wants Australia to lead, avoid the junk threats. After all, science is already on his side.