Podcast | Ep 84 | The need for bold and early decision-making in climate leadership

Find on: Spotify Apple Podcasts

Maria Rampa: Hi, I’m Maria Rampa, and welcome to this episode of Engineering Reimagined, recorded live at the 2025 CAETS Conference in Brisbane.

In this episode, we’re joined by Emeritus Professor Mark Howden, Vice Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and one of Australia’s most respected voices on climate science and policy.

Hosted by Aurecon’s Decarbonisation Practice Leader, Dr Ben McGarry, this conversation explores how climate action should be a normal part of decision-making; the role engineers play in shaping a low-carbon and resilient future; and why starting with values, incorporating systems thinking, and highlighting long-term benefits for all are essential to engaging stakeholders and delivering meaningful change.

Let’s get into the conversation.

+++++

Ben McGarry: Hello and welcome to Engineering Reimagined, recorded live at the International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences, or CAETS conference here in Brisbane. I'm joined by Emeritus Professor Mark Howden, one of Australia's most respected voices on climate science and policy. And so I'd love to welcome you to the podcast.

Mark Howden: Thanks, Ben.

Ben McGarry: Your panel this morning, it was really interesting. You've actually spent more than 30 years at the forefront of climate science and policy. So, what first inspired you to dedicate your career to this field? And is that the same thing that keeps you here now?

Mark Howden: When I was young I spent a lot of time outdoors and so the weather was really important in terms of thinking about what I was going to do tomorrow or the day after. These days it's pretty much the same thing except instead of weather it's climate and instead of thinking about going surfing tomorrow it's actually thinking about integrated planning for adaptation and emission reduction. What keeps me here is pretty much that climate change is such an important topic. And the fact that we can do something about it as well makes it almost irresistible to me, so doing something important that we can actually action and make things better for people around the world is really, really critical.

Ben McGarry: The theme for this conference, CAETS 2025 is Generations. It's about shaping the next 50 years, celebrating the 50th birthday of ATSE. Dr Woodthorpe reminded us this morning that it was actually 50 years ago that the term ‘global warming’ was first published in the Science Channel. If we do look ahead to 2075, what could Australia's low-carbon economy look like if we make the right investment in policy choices today?

Mark Howden: Just before I answer that, a bit of history for me is that I actually remember my first essay I wrote on climate change, which was in 1977. I was a high school geography student and I remember writing that and getting comment from my geography teacher at the time. And so, some of the things that make me sit back and think, is if a high school student could know around the issue in the late 70s, why has it taken so long for Australia to take it seriously? So that's a really important question, I think, to ask ourselves. In terms of what we could look like with our low carbon economy, I'd actually reframe that in the first instance. It's actually not just about the economy, it's about a much broader societal perspective. So if we do this well, we can have a more prosperous economy and population. We can have a healthier population. We can have a smarter population. We can also have a more equitable and diverse population being supported by effective action on climate change. And we can have a more robust environment that can handle the various threats that are appearing, not just climate change. If we do it well, we can stand tall amongst the nations of the world because of that leadership that we've taken, because of the action that we have taken, and how we've opened the doors for other countries to take action themselves.

Ben McGarry: Wow, that's inspiring stuff. What role do you think should engineers and infrastructure leaders play in ensuring that those asset transformation decisions or the investments we make in infrastructure, they also deliver that resilience you're talking about against climate related risks?

Mark Howden: I think the engineering profession is well past that. So if you look at Engineers Australia, they've got a code of conduct or ethics policy and a climate change policy which basically says that engineers, when providing their advice and services, need to take climate change into account, need to take greenhouse gas emissions into account, in terms of their project management, need be informed on climate change and transferring that information to clients when they're actually developing and implementing projects. So, the profession is well, well ahead there. The challenge I think, is having a client base which is sufficiently advanced and sufficiently aware of the ethical responsibilities of the profession, that they can be partners in taking climate change action forward.

Ben McGarry: It's not just providing the right answers, it's working with clients and partners that are asking the right questions. Even today we're seeing a potential decline in some of the urgency around action that some of our largest emitters are taking. Many emissions intensive assets in Australia are reaching the end of life or their original design lives and the asset owners are thinking hard about what role that asset plays strategically in the future of the business and in the future of Australia's economy and culture. So, in terms of those asset owners, why should they consider reinvesting and transforming those brownfield assets rather than closing them or moving production offshore? What would keep an emissions-intensive industrial player in Australia?

Mark Howden: There's actually a fair bit built in there, in the framing of that question, which I think is challenging for us, and critically, it's about assuming that climate change related decisions are exceptional, that they're fundamentally different from other decisions and other criteria that you use in making those decisions about asset, retirement, etc. I would argue that climate change is sufficiently well understood now that it should just be a normal part of decision making, not exceptional at all, it should just be a regular way in which you look at that asset renewal or asset disposal, etc. And if you start to think about that, what it does is, it sets up processes and information bases which can be helpful in terms of making future decisions as well as the one immediately in front of you. So I would be arguing we really should be normalising climate change decisions rather than exceptionalising them.

Ben McGarry: There's often a tension between investing early in climate or decarbonisation technology or waiting until it's more advanced for greater impact. And that tension, is heightened when you see news of the precipitous cost reductions in batteries that we've seen in the last year or two. There was recently a Saudi project with batteries priced in the $70 per kilowatt-hour US range, which is an incredibly powerful signal that we can further support renewables deployment through adding complementary low-cost storage. But with that cost curve coming down so sharply, inevitably there can be a temptation to hold off, maybe wait another year, maybe see what happens. How do we decide when to invest and when to defer that investment in decarbonisation? And what are the opportunities available in getting it right?

Mark Howden: Well again, what we're building in here is a bit of climate exceptionalism, and so if you think about that, the same decision would be made about a personal laptop, maybe your corporate computing infrastructure. Things are getting better all the time, if you wait for a year, you're going to have a computer which is faster and better than the one this year. If you wait for a year, the next TV is going to be better and cheaper and brighter than the one you've got this year. We're used to making those decisions. That's not unusual. So we have processes to do that. We can hedge, we can do partial transfers, we can wait, we can discount, we do all sorts of things to help make effective decisions. And those decisions in terms of climate change, I would see as no difference fundamentally. In many circumstances, we posit that there's significant uncertainties about climate change which are unusual and they are preventing significant action being taken. And I would actually argue that we know more about climate change in terms of uncertainties than we do about next year's stock market prices. We know more about climate change than we know about geopolitics across the globe. I don't think uncertainty about climate is an excuse for inaction any longer, and in fact the economics are incredibly clear, the most expensive thing to do is to not invest in climate change action. The best thing to do is invest in climate action early, it gives you a whole range of different benefits. So if there's a big gap between where we rationally should be, which is taking action on climate change, and where we actually are, which is not taking action on climate change at a global scale, that tells you something about the world that we've actually formed around us. And the limitations of that world.

Ben McGarry: It's pointing to that gap as being a climate governance challenge or a risk governance challenge rather than a fundamental engineering or technology or economic challenge and so for large industrial asset owners that are trying to close that gap and create globally competitive green metals and manufacturing industries, what could they be doing better in terms of that decision making around investing in climate mitigation?

Mark Howden: One is recognising the realities of potentially going for a different type of investment for energy. So one where you've got significant capital costs, but virtually zero operating costs. And as soon as you understand that, you can put in place instruments that take advantage of that. And the ultra-low operating cost for renewables is an incredible opportunity and one that's often understated. People sometimes get caught up in the politics saying renewables have increased the costs of electricity, when in fact, objective analysis shows that costs of electricity would be much higher in the absence of renewables. We need to move past the rhetoric, focus on the analysis and focus on the opportunities.

Ben McGarry: The science tells us that some climate tipping points have already been passed, and in that world where climate change is increasingly affecting the operation of assets in businesses, we're facing additional challenges or headwinds to investing in climate mitigation. You mentioned this morning that one in eight Australians are already facing food insecurity and that's in a very developed country. In that environment, in that investment climate. How do you maintain the momentum and galvanise the widespread change that we need when we have all these cost pressures?

Mark Howden: One of the things is that in Australia, but not limited to here, probably 90% of the public debate, the oxygen, is being sucked in by the renewables versus coal electricity debate. And when we look at the numbers, electricity is about 30% of our emissions profile, which means 70% of our emissions profile is largely being ignored in that public debate. And that means that there's big opportunities in that 70% which really are being missed. So we need to be more comprehensive, we need be looking for those opportunities to invest and develop options because any 10% of our emissions profile is as good as any other 10%, so let's not overly focus on just one sector. Secondly, is that the sheer economics of taking emission reduction into account, both the short-term economics by going for a cheaper energy source, renewables, or the longer-term economics by balancing out the costs of impacts, costs of adaptation, and the costs of emission reduction, actually tell us that emission reduction is the best option there. So, depending on where you're focused, short- term and local, or longer- term and global. The answer is the same, is that climate action makes a lot of sense. So, what can you do to progress that? One is you actually have to be sufficiently informed of the different aspects of it. Secondly, you have to be motivated to actually look for those options outside what people usually talk about. And thirdly you have to be prepared to carry through.

Ben McGarry: You mentioned the dominance of renewables and electrification in the global and national dialogues currently. What are the questions and conversations you see, and are part of elsewhere in the world, that you think we're not talking about enough here in Australia?

Mark Howden: One of the things I find quite disturbing, disappointing, maybe depressing is I can go and have a conversation with a farmer in Sri Lanka or a water resource manager in India and they will have accepted that climate change is real, it's human cause, they'll understand what the implications in terms of temperature or rainfall or crop yields or water yields and they will be able to have a better conversation than many of our political leaders back here. We actually need to elevate the level of conversations, the level of information that our public leaders, our elected officials have and our unelected officials, so those people in influential positions in the public service, etc. Because at the moment we're not doing ourselves any favours by essentially being less informed than many people across the globe.

Ben McGarry: You've said when you're thinking climate change, think big, think positive, think systems level and think equity and inclusion. So for the next generation of engineers, scientists and policy makers, what's your advice on driving meaningful system-wide climate action?

Mark Howden: Firstly, start with values. So, put values at the centre of your analysis and then from those values you work outwards and you say, what are the climate change implications for these values, and then, from that, you can work outwards and say, well, what are the climate projections there, what are climate options there, in terms of emission reduction or adaptation, and then how do they feed out to broader benefit across the society. So, it may be localised benefit within the company you're dealing with. Or it might be a community or a region that benefits. And by working outwards from that, layers of the onion, but putting values at the middle, you're actually going to be doing meaningful investments and investments that are probably going to be sustainable because the people involved will support them over the long term.

Ben McGarry: It feels like in a globally polarising society, finding consensus on values is getting harder and harder. Do you think there are pathways in the climate conversations that will allow us to find more common ground on values in facing our climate challenges?

Mark Howden: I do actually think there's common ground. If you look at Maslow's hierarchy of needs, it identifies a range of different levels of needs, ranging from basic physiological needs to self-fulfilment at the top of the pyramid. And those, particularly the physiological needs, are indisputably required by everyone. They are a core set of values. So there are needs for clean air, clean water, clean food, adequate shelter and clothing, and so they're basic needs. The way I'd start to think about this is that there are core values and core needs, and we can by and large agree on those things, but there's also things which differ largely depending on your political preference. And so that means you can segment your messages across that political preference. So if you're, say, dealing with someone who you think might be on the conservative end of that spectrum. Then you can start talking about things which are economic value, reduction of waste, increased efficiencies, national benefits. Those things appeal and they're all legitimate things that you can demonstrate effective climate action will help with those. Similarly, if you look at someone on the progressive end of the spectrum, you can talk about things like intergenerational equity and justice and ensuring a fair go for all and things like that. And those are also very legitimate things that effective climate action can help. So as long as you understand your audience or your clientele, you can start to tailor quite legitimate sets of prospects to them, which relate to climate action. Those may differ between group from group, but they will all be heading in the same direction because they're all legitimate actions to take in relation to climate change.

Ben McGarry: Emeritus professor Mark Howden, it's been a great pleasure to have you on our Engineering Reimagined podcast today.

Mark Howden: Thanks, Ben.

Maria Rampa: And that’s a wrap for this episode of Engineering Reimagined.

Thank-you to Emeritus Professor Mark Howden and Dr Ben McGarry for sharing their insights on climate leadership and governance, and the role engineers play in navigating complexity to deliver sustainable, system-wide solutions.

If you enjoyed this episode, be sure to subscribe to Engineering Reimagined wherever you get your podcasts and explore more conversations from Aurecon on engineering innovation, technology, sustainability, and leadership and the positive impacts engineers have on society and the planet.

Until next time, I’m Maria Rampa. Thanks for listening.

Why climate leadership must be normalised

Recorded live at the 2025 CAETS conference, this episode of Engineering Reimagined features a wide-ranging conversation with Emeritus Professor Mark Howden, Vice Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Hosted by Aurecon’s Decarbonisation Practice Leader Dr Ben McGarry, this discussion explores how climate leadership measures should be a routine part of decision-making, and why delaying action is often the most expensive option of all.

Professor Howden challenges the idea that climate change should be treated as an ‘exceptional’ issue. He advocates for normalising climate considerations alongside other business, economic, and risk decisions, and for broadening the conversation beyond electricity and renewables, to address the full emissions profile of modern economies.

“I don't think uncertainty about climate is an excuse for inaction any longer, and in fact the economics are incredibly clear, the most expensive thing to do is to not invest in climate change action. The best thing to do is invest in climate action early, it gives you a whole range of different benefits,” said Professor Howden.

The episode also explores the role engineers play in shaping a low-carbon and resilient future and why starting with values, incorporating systems thinking, and highlighting long-term benefits all matter when engaging stakeholders and delivering meaningful change.