Net zero: What’s the opportunity and for who?
Dr Michael Battaglia speaks on building national capability to support a just and equitable transition. ImpactX Summit, Sydney 22 April 2024.
We all live in places. This is my place up on Kunanyi, Mt Wellington above Nipaluna, Hobart. it is when we take a place-based view we recognised the many simultaneous challenges we are confronted with. The net zero transition is one. One that touches many of the others.
I’m Michael Battaglia from CSIRO, Australia’s national science agency. I lead the Towards Net Zero Mission, a proud sponsor of this important summit – and I want to take the next 10 minutes telling you why Climate, decarbonisation, Nature and Shared growth as connected agendas is critical.
The future bills
Globally the net zero transition is estimated to cost in the order of $250 trillion1 between now and 2050 – this is around 7.5% of global GDP – a big number.
Over that same period, it has been estimated that we will need $1trillion a year to sustainably manage biodiversity and maintain the integrity of ecosystems2 , another big number.
At the same time, that we will be needing to spend these sums, the global cost of climate change damage will be between 2-3 trillion per year by 20503, and this is assuming no unforeseen step changes in global climate systems.
And, of course in Australia, this will be set against rising health and care costs which the 2023 intergeneration report expects to rise from around 6% of GDP to around 15% of GDP by 20504, and aging infrastructure that is now 25% on average older than it was 50 years ago5, requiring at least $15bn a year more in 2050 than now on road maintenance alone6.
These are by any measure staggering numbers – apologies to GenZ, we have had the mother of all parties and left you with the bill and the clean-up.
It is important to set these facts against the arc of narrative that has framed the net zero transition challenge.
Until recently the narrative around decarbonisation was all about the down-side risk mitigation. And while managing risk, and providing pathways remains a critical part of a just and equitable transition. The narrative has been recently reframed around seizing the opportunities the transition affords a country like Australia. A country with abundant renewable resources, critical minerals, skilled labour force and strong governance. The narrative has turned to strategic competition and the risk of getting left behind. And as foreshadowed in “A Future Made in Australia” with reference to sustainable development and equity the arc leads us to this conference and its critical themes of climate and nature and shared growth.
Because we can neither afford the time or the resources to progress goals independently, and because of their deep system interdependency, the framing moves beyond the moral imperative argument (aka the greatest moral challenge of our time etc) to one based on likelihood achieving outcome and a recognition that we won’t achieve the goal without recognising and progressing other values.
At the start of transitions, it is always easy (and at times politically expedient for some) to see the risks and costs. It was that way when cars started to replace horses in the nineteenth century, and it has been that way with the renewable energy transition.
In 2020, the Institute of Public affairs estimated that 650,000 jobs were at risk in the net zero transition. Now, in 2024, Australia is being framed as a renewable energy powerhouse. This new perspective highlights opportunities for economic diversification, and the creation of new energy-intensive exports. As well as the consequent increase in onshore value adding to exports. Now in 2024, Net Zero Australia estimate jobs in gas and coal are still at risk and need appropriate support. But they also estimate that 750,000 new jobs might be created.
But – as I alluded to – system interdependencies present us with challenges. These challenges and trade-offs are made even harder because they frequently affect impact or equity across space and time.
Here and now, we are balancing the construction of renewable infrastructure with decisions on locations that impact biodiversity. We are simultaneously aware of longer-term risks – the extensive and widespread risks of climate change itself. But these are separated over time and by difference is direct and indirect attribution.
The same applies for equity matters. We have seen this playing out over the last few weeks on time of use power pricing. We have seen it previously on who can benefit and who pays for roof top solar contribution to the grid, and issues of who gets the benefits and who gets left behind in the EV transition and incentive structures.
The net zero transitions, as articulated in the US Inflation Reduction Act is a chance to redress historical inequity, but because of the complexity it can also exacerbate or perpetuate problems.
Net zero policy, according to the US National Academies of Sciences, extends beyond technologies. It involves a deep systemic intersection of various crucial elements. How do we develop the capabilities to navigate this complex space? With its trade-offs and the potential for parts of our communities to be left behind.
Convening the conversation
Well I think this conference, bringing together a really broad stakeholder group is an important place to convene this conversation. What is the national capacity we need to sustain and scale the transition?
Yes we need technological innovation – and we in the Towards Net zero mission, along with many of the research providers and innovators at this meeting are working at this. But we also need a set of capacities that allow us to navigate this deeply systemic change.
Some of these are listed here – under broad stakeholder categories. How do you summarise this: leadership, coordination, imagination and purposefulness perhaps?
Thank you