This motion was rolled out by the Young Nationals at the 2021 Nationals WA State Conference in Northam and yes it raises some questions that I'm sure will be answered in the next few days or weeks. Some social media posts report it as being passed unanimously, some suggest otherwise. It matters not beyond... it 'll unfold whether it was or not & how it was worded soon enough.
At first glance I think it's a little cart before the horse to begin with but in any case it raises other concerns. I should say up front I didn't attend the 2021 WA Nationals State Conference so I didn't hear debate on this item, nor do I know if the motion was amended at all before or during debate.
What it does say in this original motion is "incentives & disincentives" which is kind of wise to leave wriggle room for what will follow in the way of legislation, fines, penalties, taxes, possible legal proceedings against companies or individuals...and possible rebates & subsidies. It's an awful lot of "dunno what" in the words "incentives & disincentives". At some point a list of acceptable & unacceptable line items will have to be drawn up as battle lines, political lines in the sand I guess. Perhaps that's the purpose of this.
So I'll put that in the wait-n-see drawer & see what unfolds positively & negatively when those actual details finally arrive. It's the 10th of October as I type so we'll see what transpires and when.
The other thing is on Social Media, the Young Nationals are promoting this motion they helped put together but they refer to it as Zero Emissions whereas the motion reads "negative emissions by 2050"
I'm unsure if this was amended to read "zero emissions" before being passed or if there's a mistake somewhere. I think however, those 2 things are definitely two different things by a huge magnitude I cannot even calculate.
So I'll wait eagerly to learn which it is as that makes a profound difference to regional small businesses that aren't that small any more. The defined wealth creators of an economy always include agriculture & mining. We'll see how that goes.
If you switch your coffee shop in Subiaco or Claremont over to recyclable paper cups you can feel warm & fuzzy but it's a different story for a grain producer who needs torque more than horsepower to pull an air seeder that weighs a lot more than 10 tonne. Remain calm, remain positive & remain patient.
Details will come. Whether the Young Nationals have these details or not I don't know but within minutes of posting a shorter version of this on Social Media I got a message tackling me. What I said was, there needs to be proper costings on this, there also needs to be clarity around whether or not net zero or negative emissions is even possible without closing the economy down & turning Australia into a hippy commune. What will it cost to get to that level of emissions & what goes under the bus, who pays for the changes to keep people in business. It is a lot of devil in the missing detail.
So the message I got was critical of me. For that I honestly don't care. It was saying (deleting the personal comment & I'll put them in red me in black so you can follow the exchange easier)...
"...it's more expensive to do nothing"
"Well that may well be the case, however that will be reflected in the costings which will include costs of modifying processing, manufacturing, production & specifying who pays these as yet unknown costs & what the net bottom line profit might be percentage wise, when will that arrive & who pays throughout the transition phases to full net profit"
"Its not all about profit you know, we need to stop the greed and hit the repair button. Businesses can survive once they adapt"
"Greed is not in play here. if this works out to being a cost of say (just a ramdom guess) $10-15,000 per man woman & child in Australia is that cheap for businesses to make the changes?"
"I don't know what the cost will be but if its that or even more, its still cheap. Its immoral, unethical and totally wrong not to step up & pay it"
"Look I'll set aside the moral claim for now but if I were to agree with you, then we look at the total cost across the country & then charge every man woman & child $10-15,000 out of their bank account to pay for it, I mean over a set time, not in one hit, then we have have a deal?"
"No businesses & greedy corporations should pay and a small part passed onto consumers in some ways perhaps"
"So its wrong to not make these changes that may cost a fortune but only corporations, small business that employ people should pay?
Wow and you wonder why people in business think this is more than unfair, its sheer socialist madness. In other words you want everyone else to change & everyone else to pay for these changes & if they don't do that whilst leaving you totally uneffected it's "immoral, unethical & totally wrong?
Can I be very fair and ask what area your small business is in or what sector is your employer in, private or government"
Well I'm not repeating the final reply, it was a bit rude and derogatory.
Final take home I got from them -> All business and corporations must pay all the costs of transition, no one else is to be affected and there are absolutely no costings on the transitions at all
Got it.
Speaking to a mining exec, he said the problem is not getting electrical vehicles into the mining industry, there's the problem of getting equipment to produce big torque on demand for a full shift AND then paying for the offsets incurred in the manufacture of that product if it could be made. He said the sums don't add up with the current technology of moving say 100-300 tonne of ore in one load
He said its a moving feast of poison & they're trying to go flat out & make hay while the sun shines.
So yeah I'll wait & see. I won't pronounce any view on this motion. As with all State Conferences a matter is raised & passed. From there it goes into the ether never to be seen nor heard again or it gets modified, reversed.
Again, I think the devil is in the lack of detail nor the understanding of the horsepower & torque used in Ag & mining...and transport because your latte coffee beans are not Bluetoothed in across the nation.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
LATE EDIT - Just advised that the Motion was amended to read "That this State Convention of The Nationals WA supports the adoption of a net zero carbon emissions target by 2050 with clear support for sectors that need assistance to transition."
Whilst that is a quantum leap forward from the absurdly worded original motion, its timing is still bizarre & the implications still unknown. We don't actually know how much "clear support" is needed, how much it will cost and who funds it because we don't actually know what is required to achieve Zero Emissions in all the combined Australian industries.
Should add to achieve "negative emissions" I don't know what is required but it's obvious it would be a lot more than "zero emissions" because that is actually removing CO2 from the air. I am not sure what the original motioners were thinking there but so far the world experience is become like Bhutan if you want good reliable "negative emissions".
Yes, technology will evolve. But apart from looking at this motion as puffy motherhood statement I'd be a little hesitant to sign up to a target that we aren't sure how to reach or at what cost is involved or whultimately pays.
Got an idea who will pay, probably largely not consumers.
I'm not anti Zero Emissions by any date. I'm actually not anti Negative Emissions by any date, but for me to get behind it & support it, how does it affect which industries, whats it cost & who pays?
With the NFF looking at this I would hope & expect Nats liased with them (?)
Colour me a bit shocked. Bit early to commit without so much prior working knowledge.
No comments:
Post a Comment