13 September 2024
Topics: Teals’ ludicrous 75% emissions target and the Coalition’s net zero plans, social media ban
E&OE
Tom Connell:
Teal MPs are calling on the Federal Government to commit to a 2035 emissions reduction target. They want to see a 75 per cent reduction in emissions over the next decade. The government plans to introduce its own target but the Opposition at this stage won’t have one. Joining me now is Shadow Environment Minister Jonathon Duniam. Thank you for your time. Look, it’s a moving area of policy, just clarifying where the Coalition will be on this, because we’re still yet to see the nuclear policy before Christmas, Ted O’Brien promised me that at least on the show I should say. Are we going to have a 2035 target, is it up in the air or why won’t you have one?
Senator Duniam:
Well, I can tell you what we won’t have and we won’t be having a 75 per cent reduction target. I mean, that’s just madness in a cost-of-living crisis, frankly. And we won’t be doing a 2035 target either. We’ve got 2050 and we should be working toward that. The approach taken by the government, supported by the Teals and the Greens in this pursuit of emissions reductions in this draconian way hasn’t been working in a sustainable way. This is why energy costs are going up. Their pursuit of this ideological outcome here of reducing emissions no matter what the cost, is not helping Australian households or businesses and that’s why we’re going to stick to 2050. We will outline our entire energy policy and I’d be taking to the bank what you heard from Ted that we will have our policy out there before the end of the year.
Tom Connell:
So you’ve got 2050. Are you saying that you’re now locked into no more targets? It’s just net zero by 2050 and you don’t set any interim targets at all?
Senator Duniam:
Well, look there will be further announcements of course around any policy with regard to emissions reductions and you know, I’ll allow Peter Dutton and Ted O’Brien to make those announcements in due course, but at this point in time we are focused on one thing and that is bringing down power prices. It’s funny in this debate the Prime Minister doesn’t actually focus on this element of people’s pain, he’s more focused on emissions reductions. And that to me means he’s completely missing the point of the problems Australians face.
Tom Connell:
Right. But if you’re saying we don’t need a 2035, we’ve got 2050, taking that to its endpoint, that’s it. You just say, hey, we’re getting to net zero and don’t set any targets in the interim. If you don’t set targets, you often don’t have discipline to actually prioritise bringing down emissions.
Senator Duniam:
Well, a big part of our policy, as you know, and there is more meat to put on the bone as they say, is going to be nuclear and as many people have pointed out, it takes some time to get there. Our own policy has indicated 2035 to 2037 and you know, because we know there is no country in the world with a credible pathway to net zero. Look at us here in Australia. We’ve actually gone backward and are emitting more, that don’t have nuclear in the mix…
Tom Connell:
But the nuclear is not a big part because electricity is about a third of emissions of electricity, nuclear might be, I’ve seen estimates of five, let’s triple it, let’s say it’s fifteen, that means nuclear only five per cent of your emissions reduction path. That’s it’s not actually that significant overall.
Senator Duniam:
Well, every bit helps, doesn’t it? And of course, if we’re going to electrify the vehicle transport sector, if we’re going to electrify forms of manufacturing, I would expect that we are going to see more energy generation going in. If we’re going to be transitioning to hybrids and EVs and the like, I think we’re going to be seeing more electricity generated and that’s why nuclear is an important part of our response to this issue…
Tom Connell:
Alright, I think most of the estimates, yeah, they’ll use more electricity, but other it goes down and energy roughly flat lines. I’m just going to say I think that don’t quote me, Jonathon, so if you want to fact check me later send a tweet. I don’t mind. I’ve got a thick skin. I do want to move on. Social media, so Labor are apparently playing catch up with you guys, they want to ban it for a certain age. You’ll find out what that is. With social media and banning that, would that include so-called social media messaging apps? So there’s a bit of debate around say, WhatsApp or discord, discord’s used a lot by school kids and they have groups they send big texts to. Would that be covered under your ban?
Senator Duniam:
Well, I think we’d need to examine more clearly what’s in, what’s out, and I can’t announce today the list of apps that are going to be included in this. And the point of our policy is to minimise, reduce and prevent the harm that comes from early exposure to social media. These messaging apps which I think many do group in the social media category can present harm, but we’ve got to be practical about this because, I mean, Snapchat has certain elements to it, for example, but so does text messaging, and so it really is something that’s going to require some more work. But the point is, the government who are going to be introducing laws I’m told by the end of the year we have no detail yet, so I’d be keen to know exactly what they’re planning on doing.
Tom Connell:
Alright. Well, sounds like a bit of detail to go on both sides that they’re the government I guess you can argue. What about how it would be policed? Would you have any faith, let’s use Facebook as the example, that they would go yep, no worries, we’ll use all our tech, we’ll figure that out. Or would it have to be some element of government proof of ID sitting over the top of it, whatever that is, I know people spoke out sort of facial biometrics or whatever, but would that have to be the case because we just know big tech don’t really police anything properly?
Senator Duniam:
We saw that example in the week of Meta scraping personal data off a range of their platforms and using it for commercial purposes without people’s knowledge or consent or proper knowledge and consent. But look, I do believe and I understand that this sort of thing would not be achievable if you didn’t have some sort of assurance mechanism embedded in government. That will be an important part, a regulator and enforcement model that will enable people to have certainty around what these platforms and businesses are doing.
Tom Connell:
Alright, Jonathon Duniam, always good to talk. Thank you.
Senator Duniam:
Thanks Tom.