Tech can do a lot, but won’t get us to net zero on its own

Notably, this isn’t the total funding that will be spent on these low emission technologies, but only the Commonwealth’s contribution that is intended to unlock more than $A80 billion in total investment from the private sector and state governments.

With these investments, the Government estimates the plan will achieve a 30 to 35 per cent reduction in Australia’s emissions in 2030 relative to 2005.

This is slightly more than previous Government targets, but less than several proposed by bodies including the Australian Academy of Technology and Engineering and the Business Council of Australia.

And history tells us that more than technological development and disruption will be needed beyond 2030 to get us to net zero by 2050.

For example, many Australians now choose rooftop solar PV because it saves them money while also reducing emissions. The uptake nonetheless has been driven by previously strong consumer incentives – although these are now weaker and uptake is stronger than ever.

Notably, the PERC solar cell design that now has a dominant market share was invented at UNSW in the 1980s – that’s decades of support before this remarkable technology was commercial.

The experience of large-scale wind and solar PV is more complex.

Like rooftop solar PV, these were originally subsidised by the Federally mandated Renewable Energy Target. However, new wind and solar is now more driven by State-based mandates and direct contracts with large organisations seeking to reduce their emissions.

Perhaps surprisingly, energy efficient light globes required several mandates to drive their uptake even though they always saved consumers significant money. Without these mandates the old, very inefficient globes would still be widely used.

Similarly, despite the availability of more fuel-efficient hybrid powered sedans, less efficient pickup trucks and SUVs have become cheaper and much more popular in the Australian car market.

This wouldn’t be as much the case if Australia wasn’t one of the few jurisdictions without a fuel saving or greenhouse gas emissions mandate.

The inability of technological innovation to always drive decarbonisation is clear. Indeed, technological innovation can even increase emissions by making energy cheaper and encouraging greater energy consumption.

And we haven’t yet talked about other environmental impacts that will likely have to be regulated – particularly the electronic waste that will result from the uptake of some energy technologies. For example, end-of-life solar panels and batteries are two significant e-waste concerns.

We therefore cannot rule out the need for government mandates and taxes if we hope to get to net zero.

A combination of carrots and sticks is essential, and these can come in many forms. But the sticks will be government mandates and the carrots will be government subsidies raised from taxes.

As Australia’s extended warring over climate action has shown, economic purity must nonetheless take a back seat to political feasibility. The sticks cannot be too big and the carrots must be bigger.

At best, the Morrison Government’s Plan can be viewed as a pragmatic step in the right direction. At worst, the Plan will join the long list of discarded energy policies from both sides of politics.

In the lead up to the forthcoming Federal Election, let us take it and the Opposition’s equivalent policy equally seriously and move beyond the climate wars.

We can then focus on the much bigger, much harder and much more exhilarating task – embracing the great disruption and building a net-zero energy system in less than three decades.

This article was first published by the University of Melbourne.