Australians are being presented with another startling contrast between colossal risk and paltry action over climate change.
The latest scientific advice is that human activity has already caused an increase of 1 degree in world temperatures, with global warming estimated to reach 1.5 degrees by 2052 on current trends.
The cost is astronomical. The damage over the years to 2100 would reach $US54 trillion in today’s dollars if warming was kept to 1.5 degrees. The cost would climb to $US69 trillion if warming reached 2 degrees.
 |
| Prime Minister Scott Morrison.Credit:Alex Ellinghausen |
The obvious message from the report is to stop the 2 degree scenario. The scientists say this means halting the use of coal by 2050, accelerating the use of renewables and making mammoth investments to change the economy.
This cost is just as draw-dropping. The report says the investment would need to be $US2.4 trillion a year by 2034 across the global economy. There is no country-by-country analysis of what this means but Australia makes up about 1 per cent of global emissions, so it may have the same share of the expense.
Can Australia invest $US24 billion a year to avert dangerous climate change? That is more than the federal government spends on public hospitals.
 |
| Island life. Credit: Matt Golding |
The two major parties will not rush the closure of coal-fired power stations.
The answer from the government is to ask for more time to come up with a policy. The leadership turmoil in August left the Liberals and Nationals without a plan to reduce emissions.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison insisted on Monday that Australia would meet its emission targets "in a canter" but this is disputed by climate experts. It is a laughable message – nothing more than saying "trust us" – when the demise of the National Energy Guarantee proved again that the Coalition party room is incapable of reaching a consensus and then holding its nerve on energy and climate policy.
Labor has a 50 per cent target for renewable energy by 2030 but is yet to spell out how it would reduce emissions in government. One approach is to rebuild a policy from the wreckage of the NEG but this is easier said than done.
It is telling that Opposition Leader Bill Shorten signalled it was too risky to be too ambitious. "We are not saying that there won't be fossil fuel as part of our energy mix going forward," he said on Monday.
Political leaders are making a pragmatic assessment of the will of the Australian people.
The dismal assessment from the scientists is that even a political success on energy would not save the Great Barrier Reef as we know it today. The trend towards 1.5 degrees means damaging 70 to 90 per cent of the world's coral reefs.
It is hard to see an agreement in Canberra, let alone the world, that is strong enough to stop that happening.
Links
- 'Next decade critical': Perils mount at 1.5 degrees of warming, says IPCC
- 'Terrible': Rising gas output lifts Australia's greenhouse gas emissions
- Climate scientists are struggling to find the right words for very bad news
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report: 1.5˚C
- Coal Power Finished By 2050 If Temperature Increase Kept To 1.5 Degrees: IPCC
- The world has just over a decade to get climate change under control, U.N. scientists say
- IPCC 1.5 C degree report points to high stakes of climate inaction
- UN warns paradigm shift needed to avert global climate chaos
- World Resources Report: Creating a Sustainable Food Future
- Low-Carbon Growth Is a $26 Trillion Opportunity. Here Are 4 Ways to Seize It.
- Half a Degree and a World Apart: The Difference in Climate Impacts Between 1.5 and 2˚C of Warming
- 6 Ways to Remove Carbon Pollution from the Sky
- Forget Paris: Australia needs to stop pretending we're tackling climate change
- Here's why the majority of green turtles in north Queensland are female
- 2017 was third warmest year on record for globe, scientists say
No comments:
Post a Comment