‘Religious extremists’ stifling climate debate: David Littleproud

The ‘religious’ extremes on both sides of the climate change debate are stifling discussion, federal Agriculture Minister David Littleproud says.

Agriculture Minister David Littleproud said that while ‘everyone has aspirations’ for a net zero deal, ‘ultimately someone has to pay’. Picture: Gary Ramage/NCA NewsWire

The “religious” extremes on both sides of the climate change debate are stifling discussion in the run-up to crucial international talks this month, federal Agriculture Minister David Littleproud says.

The Nationals deputy leader said the junior Coalition party’s reluctance to endorse the Liberals’ plan to reduce Australia’s emissions to net zero by 2050 was not about political grandstanding or holding anyone to ransom ahead of the UN climate change conference in Glasgow beginning on October 30 – but about doing what was right.

Despite lengthy discussions this week, the Nationals say they still want time to study the proposed plan to ensure rural and regional Australia and local industries such as agriculture, mining and manufacturing aren’t unfairly treated.

Mr Littleproud told The Australian Ag Podcast this week the “religion of yes or no” in the climate change debate was overshadowing both common sense and advances in technology to deal with a changing climate.

“This religion from the extremes of both sides has created anxiety in the community that we are not moving towards an achievement and that there are going to be significant job losses,” Mr Littleproud said.

“We’ve got to look at this to say to those coal miners out there that you are going to be in a pit, digging up coal for decades to come and this is what we’ve got to understand, and allow the sensible men and women in the room to work through.”

Mr Littleproud said that while “everyone has aspirations” for a net zero deal, “ultimately someone has to pay”.

He said the Nationals were keen to see “safeguards and insurance policies” in place within a plan to ensure rural and regional Australia was not “done over again some years down the track”.

“We are not saying no but we are not saying yes and we want to make sure we get this right because (in previous plans) we didn’t get it right and there were some unintended consequences for the bush … we can’t have that again,” Mr Littleproud said.

“We are the last line of defence and we’ve got to get it right. We are not being unreasonable on this – we are the ones that have been put in a corner.”

Emissions Reduction Minister Angus Taylor has said the net-zero plan would protect traditional markets and jobs while taking advantage of new economic opportunities.

The Australian this week reported on confidential modelling that revealed gas, resources and agricultural exports would continue to grow in a net-zero world.

The agriculture industry has embraced a future of reduced emissions. The National Farmers’ Federation has backed a net zero 2050 approach on the proviso there is an economic pathway and farmers aren’t burdened by unnecessary red tape, while the red meat industry is halfway to becoming carbon-neutral by 2030.

“(The NFF) have supported it with caveats and that’s what the National Party is doing, making sure those caveats are protected,” Mr Littleproud said.

“We are not going to blindly sign up to something until we understand how we are going to get there, who pays for it. To do otherwise is just reckless.” Mr Littleproud said the agriculture sector adopted technologies “more than any other industry because we have to; otherwise the challenges of a changing climate impact on our bank balance”.

“We are already doing this. We understand the changing climate – we are at the coalface of it for want of a better word,” he said.

Mr Littleproud said the coal industry had been “demonised” in the debate and opponents had “made it the nexus of argument rather than sticking to first principles”.

“And the first principles are to reduce emissions … if you can still do that with coal here in Australia and around the world, then why wouldn’t you? But if we find new technologies, new resources that we can create even cleaner energy, then why wouldn’t we?”