'We’re Not Going Anywhere,' Say Climate Change Authority Dissenters

The Guardian - Graham Readfearn

Authority's recommendations will 'sanction further delay' with 'serious consequences' for Australia, minority report says

The dissenters' chief accusation is that the Climate Change Authority has ignored the realities of the Paris agreement, which calls for all countries to work together to keep global warming 'well below 2C'. Photograph: Mick Tsikas/Reuters

Despite its brevity, the dissenting report from two members of the government's supposedly independent Climate Change Authority has landed with a dull and uncompromising thud.
Last week the CCA published its report advising the government what it should and shouldn't do in the wake of the Paris climate agreement. In short, the report recommended the government keep the chief pillars of its current policies, but make a few tweaks here and there.
But it emerged that two members of the 10-strong authority would not be endorsing the report, namely Clive Hamilton, professor of public ethics at Charles Sturt University, and David Karoly, professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Melbourne.
Now Hamilton and Karoly have published their dissenting report, which has already been dismissed by the energy and environment minister, Josh Frydenberg.

David Karoly and Clive Hamilton have refused to endorse the Climate Change Authority's report. Photograph: Alan Porritt/AAP

The authority's chair, Wendy Craik, has also issued a clarification under the heading "misleading report", saying Hamilton and Karoly's effort was "not released or endorsed by the authority, and has no status as an authority report".
The CCA's report is pinned to the government's current target to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 26% to 28% by 2030, based on their levels in 2005. That's the target the Australian government took to the Paris climate talks, despite the authority previously suggesting the target should be between 40% and 60%.
Hamilton and Karoly's dissenting report says:

Treating our 'Paris commitment' as if it were only the 26-28% target and not the commitment to hold warming to well below 2C is convenient for the current government's domestic agenda, but it contradicts the nation's international legal obligations and national interest in avoiding dangerous climate change.

Previous CCA reports have been marked by their efforts to stay true to the challenge of bringing the policy and the science together.
Hamilton and Karoly's chief accusation is that the authority has ignored the realities of the Paris agreement, which calls for all countries to work together to keep global warming "well below 2C" and eventually shoot for 1.5C.
The pair's report says:

We believe that the effect of the majority report will be to sanction further delay and a slow pace of action with serious consequences for the nation. Those consequences include one or both of: very severe and costly emission cuts in the mid to-late 2020s; or, repudiation of Australia's international commitments and free riding on the efforts of the rest of the world. The latter would weaken global momentum for an effective response to climate change and harm the nation diplomatically.

What's more, Hamilton and Karoly have suggested the authority has effectively ignored its previous recommendations based on a "carbon budget" approach. This "budget" has suggested Australia must not emit more than 10.1bn tonnes of greenhouse gases between 2013 and 2050.
Hamilton and Karoly say that under the CCA's latest recommendations, more than 90% of that budget will already be used up by the year 2030.
I spoke to Hamilton and asked why he thought the authority had apparently shifted away from its previous advocacy for more rapid cuts and stricter targets. He wouldn't comment.
So was he intending to stay at the authority? He told me:

We're still members and we're not going anywhere. It has been suggested that we might resign. We are not resigning and we're there until out five-year terms expire in July next year. We have an important contribution to make within the terms of the authority's act.

Hamilton said he had started to become concerned about the direction of the authority's latest report "two or three months ago":

I crossed a point where I thought that [the report] goes too far to try to accommodate political circumstances – or an assessment of the political circumstances.

He told me the CCA was modelled on Britain's Climate Change Committee and had two key functions – "expertise in its advice" and "independence from government interference or dictation". He said:

I think that all that an independent authority like the Climate Change Authority can do is to attempt to adhere to that. Of course, no one can be purist and everyone wants their report to have an influence rather than get dusty on shelves, but you can go too far and be too clever by half and second guess the political process. And of course, you can just get it wrong.

Hamilton said he thought the authority had had a positive impact on policy debates.
Despite its recommendations on targets being largely ignored by the previous government, the authority had helped "set a credible benchmark" against which policy proposals could be judged. He added:

In the public domain, it's had a big impact. It's had a big influence in the parliament and with the wider public. It is operating in such a poisonous political space that all it can do in my view to retain its authority is to stick to the principles in its act and make its recommendations on the evidence that we have.

Links

• Australia needs two emissions trading schemes, Climate Change Authority says
• Climate Change Authority splits over ETS report commissioned by Coalition
• Climate scientists write another letter warning of unfolding crisis for Turnbull to ignore
• How the fossil fuel industry's new pitch is more like an epitaph than a life lesson
• Why Malcolm Roberts' demand for 'empirical evidence' on climate change is misleading
• Scientists endure extreme Antarctic temperatures to extract ice cores – video