Climate Denial is not Conservatism
It is absolutely undeniable that the Liberal Party needs a new approach to climate policy if we are to win back the votes that have been lost to Labor, the teal independents and the Greens.
Many frame this as a contest between conservatives and moderates within the party, as if there is something inherently conservative about climate denial. There isn’t. It’s not an ideological question, it’s a factual one: is scientific consensus about human induced climate change correct?
Let me be clear, there is nothing wrong with healthy scepticism about scientific consensus. There was a time, not long ago, when scientific consensus said that newborns should sleep on their tummies to reduce the risk of SIDS. It turns out the exact opposite was true. Scientific consensus can be wrong and we must account for this, but that is no reason to dismiss or ignore it just because it’s inconvenient.
How can we trust scientific consensus in this case then? Firstly, a feature of the the modern scientific establishment is that it is strongly biased towards exposing erroneous consensus. The most celebrated scientists in history made their mark by debunking theories that were once taken as gospel. The incentives for debunking climate change are very strong, for society at large and for scientists, but nobody has been able to do it. Secondly, the consensus among scientists has been increasing as more evidence and research is produced, not decreasing. If it were like the SIDS example, and the scientific consensus was very wrong, one would expect the opposite.
Even if the prevailing scientific consensus is wrong, it is still the best we have to go by. Neglecting it because it might be wrong is tantamount to saying all scientific consensus should be neglected. We trust scientists on much more personally important issues such as the health of our children, it makes no sense to make an exception for climate change.
True conservatism means holding true to the enlightenment principles that have been the foundation of our society’s prosperity for centuries. The primacy of evidence and the scientific method over competing explanations of reality goes right back to Galileo, and true conservatism means putting the evidence above what we want to be true.
The conservative instinct is to favour the status quo over rapid change with its unpredictable consequences. Ironically, climate denial is likely to precipitate the exact kind of rapid and unpredictable change that conservatives are so wary of.
It is true that substantial change will be required to reach zero emissions, and it is therefore crucial for conservatives to play a role in counterbalancing the reckless tendencies of the radical left. The problem is that we cannot play this role from a position of climate denial, not least because climate denial makes us unelectable in cities.
A policy of compromise between climate deniers (do nothing) and the rest (do what is necessary) amounts to a lukewarm response (do less than necessary) that pleases nobody.
A truly conservative climate policy must:
Acknowledge the primacy of scientific evidence in informing policy, and that the science is never “in”, but rather evolves as new evidence comes to light, and our policy response should evolve accordingly.
Fully and unambiguously commit to climate action, and set goals based on independent scientific advice.
Offer a compelling alternative to achieving those goals according to Liberal principles, namely ones that emphasize the importance of free markets, individual choice and small government.
By sidelining ourselves from the debate, as we did recently with the Safeguard Mechanism, we miss the opportunity to present a compelling alternative, and advocate for sensible solutions. Instead, we leave the hugely consequential decisions on climate action to be made by radicals. That’s hardly a win for conservatism.
If we can move beyond the fruitless debate about the reality of climate change, we put ourselves into the advantageous position of offering credible solutions and constructive debate around important challenges. To those who claim we are “Labor lite” when we advocate for genuine climate action, consider how many major issues there are that we can achieve “brand differentiation” on when we come to the table:
· How do we best capture the economic opportunity of increased worldwide demand for clean energy and resources?
· How do we prepare workers in fossil fuel industries to transition to new employment?
· How do we achieve a reduction in fossil fuel extraction without Australia paying an unfair and disproportionate cost (the implication of the Greens’ “no new coal and gas” policy)?
· What is the most efficient way of reducing or offsetting carbon emissions?
· How can we reduce power prices?
And there are many more. Unless we genuinely acknowledge the need for climate action, nobody will take our arguments seriously on any of the issues above.
The prevailing narrative at the moment is that the Liberal party is in the midst of a war between conservatives who want the party to move further right, and moderates who want the party to move further left. I believe this is wrong.
The war is not between conservatives and moderates, left and right, but rather it is between climate deniers and those that support climate action. Unfortunately for the deniers, the electorate has comprehensively and unambiguously ruled in favour of climate action. There is no other explanation for losing seats to Teal and Green candidates running almost exclusively on climate action.
An important caveat: it would be wrong to draw the conclusion that because the electorate has shifted to voting Labor, Teal and Greens, they have shifted to the left. Rather, we have left climate conscious voters of all persuasions with no choice but to go left. Our hope as a party lies in the Australian sense of fairness, aspiration and common sense that our core values appeal to. The voters will return. We just need to stop driving them away with half-hearted climate policy.
We can remain a centre right party, with strong differentiation from Labor, while also supporting climate action. Until we do, we’d better get used to being in opposition.