Are Australian politicians hindering meaningful emissions reductions through poor framing of the climate change dilemma?

 The science is resoundingly conclusive. Global temperatures are rising, and it is fundamentally a result of manmade greenhouse gas emissions trapping heat in the earth’s atmosphere.

And yet, at a time when it seems like the alarm bells couldn’t be ringing any louder, Australia is creeping further and further away from fulfilling its UNFCCC Paris summit pledge to limit global temperature rise to below 2 degrees Celsius. Not only has the Coalition’s Direct Action plan failed to incentivise a reduction in emissions by the country’s heaviest polluters, it has wasted an exorbitant amount of resources funding green projects with negligible net gains.

An economic reliance on fossil fuel exports is only one factor when it comes to accounting for Australia’s failure to achieve its emissions reduction targets. A less obvious, but equally important factor is the failure of politicians on both sides of parliament to develop a compelling discourse on climate change action that motivates the Australian public to support emissions reductions.

The Coalition’s discourse on climate change is woefully inadequate, with conservative members arguing that emissions reductions would devastate our economy, create eyesores on the Australian landscape (in the form of ‘ugly’ windmills), and would mean implementing a toxic carbon tax that would ruin the financial wellbeing of young, hard-working families.

From Labor, the political stance is more ideologically palatable, but the language is no more positive. We hear that failure to undertake ambitious emissions reductions would destroy our economy, pose a security threat due to an influx of environmental refugees, and mean losing $5.7 billion in tourism income from irreparable bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef.

However, a recent study indicates that talking about the negative consequences of climate change is ineffective in encouraging individuals to support pro-environmental behaviour. Instead, success lies in reframing the debate and talking about the economic benefits of reducing our emissions. Our politicians need to approach the climate change issue in an economically rationalist way that appeals to both the climate activists and the climate denialists alike.

We need employment minister Michaelia Cash and shadow minister Brendan O’Connor to talk about how more investment in household renewables would not only save the environment, but also have the co-benefit of creating 28 000 jobs across Australia in the renewable energy sector.

Our politicians need to reflect on countries like Denmark, which has approached the climate change dilemma as a positive opportunity to add value to its capitalist economy. Denmark’s clean-tech industry has been non-subsidised since 2001, currently employs 60 000 people, and contributes to 3% of the country’s GDP.

We need our energy and climate ministers from both sides of parliament to encourage the installation of rooftop solar panels not only as a way to protect the planet, but as a way to cut household expenses amidst growing concerns over rising energy prices.

Importantly, we also need to hear that both parties will collaborate to develop a clear bi-partisan emissions reduction strategy, which will have the co-benefit of stimulating business confidence. With more confidence, Australia’s private sector is more than capable of matching Denmark in becoming a global leader in green technology development that will offset the impact of our dwindling mining boom and support our economy in the decades to come.

Enough of the fear mongering. If Australia is to have any chance of meeting its emissions reduction targets, our politicians have to convince the Australian public to get excited about climate change, and the opportunities it provides to re-shape our economy in the 21^st century technology age. But to do so, our politicians need to positively reframe their discourse on the climate change dilemma.

Natalie Kutcher is in her third year of a Bachelor of Commerce and Bachelor of Arts at Sydney University, with dual majors in Commercial Law, International Business, International Relations and French Studies. Recently, she completed an overseas internship with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) at its headquarters in Paris, where she assisted in research on social economies and social business frameworks. In 2015, she studied European politics and French language at SciencesPo in Paris, and intends to return to France next year to complete a six-month exchange at Université de la Rochelle. She has a keen interest in environmental politics and foreign languages.