The slogan for saving plastic is often "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle."

Write a slogan that motivates people to recycle their plastic.

Another key justification for reducing emissions far slower than possible is an appeal to “technology neutrality.” It’s meant to signify a calm, level-headed and objectivity; a capability to assess machines on their engineering and scientific merits, and to remain unclouded by the emotions of activists and environmentalists. Finkel laments being asked to reduce emissions quickly without nuclear, fossil hydrogen and carbon capture: a “litany of proscribed approaches.”

Climate centrism serves the fossil-fuel industry. “Technology neutrality” creates a playground for fossil companies to maximise profits at the cost of direct harm to human life. In Finkel’s essay, anything outside the middle of the road is “perfectionism” or climate denial, and both are dismissed accordingly. In reality, the planet will continue to warm for as long as net greenhouse gas emissions are greater than zero, and any plea to go slower than as fast as possible comes packaged with an implicit acceptance of worsening climate harm.

Finkel’s essay is at its best when it is outlining the history of fossil fuels, or explaining the fascinating science behind climate solutions. It is at its worst – and most consequential – when it works to justify the slow, incremental and dangerous approach to the climate threat being deployed by Australia’s government. To treat climate as a crisis is decried as “perfectionism,” and the only calm, level-headed approach is to go with the free-market technological flow.

What is the use of writing slogans on plastic?

The essay is certainly political, in the broadest sense, because of the way Finkel goes about the entirely appropriate task of persuading his readers. Unfortunately, at several points, it degenerates into what is best described as heavy-handed debating tactics. For example, early in the essay Finkel states, in an apparent attempt to be positive and encouraging about the coming energy system transition, that “the good news is that there is momentum. From 2005 to 2018, the OECD countries cut emissions by an average of 9 per cent, Australia by 13 per cent.” Australian emissions did indeed fall, but entirely because of dramatic reductions from the land sector. Energy combustion emissions increased by 6 per cent from 2005 to 2016, before levelling off in 2017 and 2018. As a share of Australia’s total emissions, they increased from 58 per cent in 2005 to 71 per cent in 2018. If, as Finkel states, emissions are the only really important performance indicator for the energy transition (an absolutely correct assessment), Australia has, as yet, no momentum at all. (Energy emissions fell in 2019–20, but almost entirely because of the dramatic negative impact of the pandemic lockdowns on consumption of petroleum fuels for road transport and aviation.)

Alan Finkel closes the introduction of his recent Quarterly Essay with a quote from the Borg, a fictitious species from : “resistance is futile.” Finkel’s plea: stop “cave dwelling” and accept the unavoidable technological carbon revolution.

In this part of the essay, Finkel departs from his otherwise clear style: it appears he has slipped into the role of the public servant who avoids going against expert advice but still gives his or her political master enough wriggle room to implement their preferred policies. This is more than a matter of semantics, because a great deal is at stake – a vast amount of public money, a large and expensive stranded asset and possible retaliatory trade measures against Australia if we continue to lag on decarbonising our economy. If there is excess capacity in a gas-fired power station, that capacity will be used: even if its owners cannot cover full costs, they will dump electricity at marginal cost, worsening emissions.

Yes, as Rebecca Huntley says, we need policy to drive technological change. That policy is constantly evolving and under challenge. My goal in writing the Quarterly Essay was to show that technology can deliver if policy is supportive. I agree with Nick Rowley that technology does not live in a policy vacuum, but for the reasons he outlines in his commentary, I believe that I can maximise my effectiveness as an adviser on getting to zero by focusing on the key technologies that will make it possible.

What makes a good slogan on plastic?

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has been quoted as saying that no new natural gas generators should be built. That is not correct. What the IEA said is that there is no need for new oil and gas fields to be developed in its net-zero model. Also, and perhaps surprisingly, the IEA model shows natural gas generation increasing for the next five years, with a decline after that. This is consistent with a shift towards natural gas generation playing more of a firming role and less of a replacement role. Whether or not new natural gas generators should be built is a different question, the answer to which depends both on how fast coal-fired generators retire and on our ability to meet peak demand. The faster that coal-fired generators retire, the more we might need to call on natural gas generators to firm the solar and wind electricity that replaces the coal generation.

How do I write effective slogans on plastic?

Since he was appointed chief scientist, Finkel has been widely criticised for his support of gas, and in this essay he responds to a public rebuke on this issue by twenty-five leading scientists. If Finkel were still chief scientist, the essay – an endorsement of the government’s technology roadmap, hydrogen plan and gas-led recovery – would make a lot more sense. Instead, we have a clever and subtle piece of political writing about the positive role of fossil fuels in solving Australia’s energy and emissions problems – overtly, with references to gas, and covertly, with arguments for “blue” hydrogen, a Trojan horse for gas and coal, premised on the magic of carbon capture and storage (CCS).

Make sure your slogan encourages people to reduce or refuse plastic.

Early in his essay, Megalogenis notes that “Covid-19 has demonstrated a wicked genius for exploiting gaps in the old model.” He was talking about the economic model, but in fact the pandemic has laid bare gaps and fractures right across our society – including in how we are governed. The relationship of levels of Australian government may be a rare instance in which what has been exposed is actually an improvement on how we believed things were. We shouldn’t therefore assume that the only way forward is back – back to centralised federal control, back to states and territories as the second tier by design and by function. To do so would be to miss an important opportunity to build a better system of government for our post-pandemic future.

Can slogans on plastic make a difference?

The job of chief scientist, which Finkel occupied for five years until last November, is hard at the best of times. Where science meets policy will always be a place of tension. Politics is concerned not with positive questions, but with collective decisions and action: not “What is true?” but “What shall we do?” Because many of the questions most relevant to policy decisions may not or cannot have scientifically informed answers, politics challenges science. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we saw chief medical officers Brendan Murphy and Paul Kelly standing side by side with Scott Morrison, but even in response to the pandemic, Murphy and Kelly could only inform, not make, what are rightly political decisions.