By Peter Shmigel

From the amount of media that climate change is receiving, you’d surely think that environment will be a big vote decider in this Federal election. You might want to think again.

For a voter to move from one Party to the other on any given issue, there have to be clear points of difference between the two. One Party has to differentiate from the other in policy, positioning and competency terms.

The fact is that when it comes to climate change both Parties practice “shades of gradualism”. When their overall strategic directions on climate change are laid side-by-side, there is strong commonality between the Coalition and Labor:

· Both ultimately want to protect Australia’s resource-based economy and recognise our growing reliance on Chinese and Indian economic needs;

· Both understand Australia’s comparatively minor net greenhouse gas contribution and the fact that international action is fundamental to any real progress;

· Both see current energy sources as providing the majority contribution to our domestic energy mix into the future;

· Both (whether they admit it or not or set targets or not) treat renewable energy technologies as ultimately boutique;

· Both favour a reasonably market-friendly mechanism – emissions trading – as a key means for stimulating greenhouse gas reduction;

· Both Parties have pretty much shut up about climate change adaptation or how we should manage future impacts here in Australia – too scary to tell farmers and tourism operators they’re on the brink;

· Both only fiddle around the edges when it comes to demand management – again too scary to tell Joe and Jane Bloggs they don’t really need that flat screen in the bathroom;

· Both understand the general community’s desire for more action by somebody – and it’s equal unwillingness to in its own right pay more, buy less, give up the car etc, and;

· Both know from their research that the general community’s still a bit confused about climate change and not yet fully articulating what it wants done.

There are in fairness some differences between Lib and Lab, but on closer analysis they are largely symbolic rather than substantive. Labor has committed to a greenhouse gas reduction target of 60% by 2050 with economic analysis to come; the Coalition wants the economic analysis before committing to a target - probably pretty close to 60/2050 anyway. Labor wants us to commit to Kyoto – full well knowing we’ve already met our reduction target and that Kyoto is more a word (like “Sorry”) than a workable agreement nowadays. The Coalition has committed to compensating Australia’s Grey Army for climate change related utility costs – full well knowing it’s really convenient cover for a big cash handout in the election period. Labor has a rock star as spokesperson; Liberals an investment banker.

The fact is that the two major Parties are not actively seeking competitive advantage over each other in the climate change space. If they were, the policy contrast would be much greater. Rather, each is doing just enough to strategically neutralise the other guy and tactically use the issue to lock in some core constituencies – against the backdrop of economic realism and (some would say appropriate) deference to business interests. For their part, Labor back-roomers will be laughing all the way to the ballot box for not having had to do anything to win over the hapless and goofy Greens’ preferences. For their part, Liberal apparatchiks can take some heart from their best ever ‘ratings’ by various green NGOs.

The bottom line is largely stale mate in national voting terms – just some continuation of the normal historical pattern of Labor being seen as somewhat better on environment. In a tight race (which this may well not be), that won’t make a difference in swing terms, but it could matter a bit in a few key seats with stronger “green sophisticate” constituencies such as Wentworth, Macquarie, Richmond, and Adelaide.