13/07/2018

Australia Falls Further In Rankings On Progress Towards UN Sustainable Development Goals

The Conversation | 

Australia’s exported greenhouse emissions are higher per person than Saudi Arabia’s. AAP Image/Richard Wainwright
Australia is performing worse than most other advanced countries in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), according to the global SDG Index, which compares different nations’ performance on the goals.
According to the SDG Index, released yesterday in New York, Australia is ranked 37th in the world – down from 26th last year, and behind most other wealthy countries including New Zealand, Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom.
The best-performing countries are the northern European nations of Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Germany, all of which have a history of balancing economic, social and environmental issues.
The SDG Index measures progress against the 17 SDGs agreed by all countries at the United Nations in 2015. The goals encompass a set of 169 targets to be met by 2030 to achieve economic prosperity, social inclusion and environmental sustainability.
Yet despite the progress made by some countries, all nations still have a way to go to achieve all of the goals.

Australia: the world’s worst on climate action
The latest SDG Index shows that Australia is performing relatively well in areas such health and wellbeing, and providing good-quality education. But its results for the environmental goals and climate change are among the worst in the OECD group of advanced nations.
The new index ranks Australia as the worst-performing country in the world on climate action (SDG 13). The measure takes into account greenhouse gas emissions within Australia; emissions embodied in the goods we consume; climate change vulnerability; and exported emissions from fossil fuel shipments to other countries.
One of the reasons why Australia has slumped so far in the rankings is that the SDG Index is now taking into account the so-called “spillover” effects that countries have on other nations’ ability to meet the SDGs. These effects may be positive, such as providing development aid; or negative, such as importing or exporting products that create pollution.
The report shows that G20 nations account for the largest negative economic, environmental, and security spillover effects. Despite being among the richest nations in the world, the US, the UK and Australia are rated worst in the G20 for negative spillovers.
The UK, for instance, rates particularly badly on the tax haven score, which makes it harder for other countries to raise the tax revenue needed to provide health, education and other services to their citizens.
This year’s SDG Index also includes a key environmental spillover indicator: carbon dioxide emissions embodied in fossil fuel exports, calculated using a three-year average of coal, gas and oil exports.
Australia’s annual exported CO₂ emissions are a colossal 44 tonnes per person. This outstrips even Saudi Arabia (35.5 tonnes per person), and is orders of magnitude larger than the figure for the US (710kg per person).

G20 leading the way?
With all countries still falling short of achieving the SDGs, the SDG Index also assesses what actions G20 governments are taking to help close this gap. Most G20 countries have begun to implement the goals but there are large variations among G20 countries in how the SDGs are being embraced by political leaders and translated into action.
Composite score of national coordination and implementation mechanisms for the SDGs in G20 countries. SDSN and Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2018 SDG Index and Dashboards Report
Brazil, Mexico and Italy have taken the most significant steps among G20 countries to achieve the goals, illustrated for instance by the existence of SDG strategies, coordination units in governments, or online platforms. India and Germany have at least partially already undertaken an assessment of investment needs.
According to this assessment, Australia has taken some initial steps to support SDG implementation. Supportive actions taken by the government include setting up a cross-departmental committee, co-chaired by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, to coordinate Government SDG activities. The Senate has established an inquiry to examine the opportunities to implement the goals.
Significantly, the federal government has also prepared a Voluntary National Review report on progress in implementing the goals, which it will present to the UN’s High Level Political Forum next week. The report addresses how Australia is performing against each of the goals and includes many case studies of implementation from business, civil society, academia, youth and all levels of government. It is accompanied by a new Australian SDG case study hub. Many of these activities occurred after the cut-off period for the SDG Index, so Australia’s overall performance on SDG implementation is actually higher than the SDG Index gives it credit.
However, Australia is not taking more deliberative action to address the SDGs, such as developing a national implementation plan or setting aside funding for SDG implementation. Nor are individual departments identifying the gaps in Australia’s SDG performance and identifying what they plan to do differently to address them.
Given Australia’s poor performance on some of the SDGs there is clearly a need for targeted action if we are to achieve the goals by the 2030 deadline.

Links

Combating Climate Change Could Create 24 Million Jobs By 2030

Asian Correspondent - Max Walden

Source: William Bossen / Unsplash
CLIMATE change provides a major threat to more than a billion of workers, as well as opportunities to create employment for millions around the world if addressed correctly, according to a new report.
The World Employment and Social Outlook 2018 released in May by the International Labour Organization (ILO) claimed that at least 1.2 billion people rely on a healthy and sustainable environment in their work – particularly those in agriculture, fisheries and forestry.
Climate change poses grave risks to future employment. The ILO reported that 23 million working life years have been lost to natural disasters since 2000, and climate change will see disasters occur more frequently and with greater severity.
Around 2 percent of total working hours – the equivalent of 72 million fulltime jobs – will be lost by 2030 due to heat stress, it said.
“The effects of environmental degradation on the world of work are particularly acute for the most vulnerable workers,” it said. “Rural workers, people in poverty, indigenous and tribal peoples and other disadvantaged groups are affected the most by the impact of climate change.”


As such, climate change and environmental degradation further exacerbate global inequality, which has risen sharply in recent decades. According to the World Inequality Report 2018, the top 1 percent of individuals have captured twice as much income growth as the bottom 50 percent since 1980.
The ILO claimed that 18 million more jobs would be created if the world could meet the Paris Agreement’s goal of keeping the increase in global temperatures to just 2°C above pre-industrial levels.
It projected that while shifts away from carbon and resource intensive industries toward greener technology would see 6 million jobs lost in the short-term, it would also see the creation of 24 million jobs, “meriting complementary policies to protect workers and ensure that the transition is just.”
Demonstrators dressed as Donald Trump and as a polar bear are seen during a demonstration in Bonn against the COP 23 UN Climate Change Conference hosted by Fiji but held in Bonn, Germany November 11, 2017. Source: Reuters/Wolfgang Rattay
Some 23 countries have already succeeded in growing their economies while simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas emissions and their environmental footprint, the report’s authors said.
Cambodia, for example, since 2013 has mainstreamed green growth into its national economic development plan and employment legislation.
Mongolia, meanwhile, identifies “green employment” as a priority, aiming to provide income to 80 percent of its working age population through decent employment and to increase resilience to the negative impacts of climate change.
“Low-income and some middle-income countries need support to develop data collection, identify and adopt best practices, strengthen implementation and finance both mitigation and adaptation strategies in order to achieve a just transition to environmentally sustainable economies and societies for all,” concluded the report.

Links

Greenpeace And Getup Launch Campaign To Kill National Energy Guarantee

The Guardian

Exclusive: Television ads in Victoria and Queensland aim to get state governments to veto Turnbull’s set piece policy
A Greenpeace protest. Greenpeace and GetUp will attempt to have the national energy guarantee vetoed by the states because it is not ambitious enough in emissions reduction. Photograph: Greenpeace
The Queensland and Victorian governments will be hit with a new television advertising campaign in an effort to persuade them to torpedo the national energy guarantee at a critical meeting in early August.
The activist group GetUp has combined with Greenpeace to bankroll what it describes as hard-hitting television advertisements targeting the two Labor-held states ahead of a meeting of energy ministers in August that will make or break the Turnbull government’s signature energy policy.
Opponents of the national energy guarantee have been frustrated that the Victorian government thus far has been muted in its public criticism of the scheme, and fear the Australian Capital Territory – which has been persistently critical – won’t sink the Neg at the Coag energy council unless one of the larger states is also on board.
With the Queensland energy minister, Anthony Lynham, calling in key stakeholders on Thursday to take soundings on the policy, GetUp’s national director, Paul Oosting, told Guardian Australia the activist group “expects all states to use their veto power” in August and fight for a national energy policy that would cut pollution and assist the transition to renewables.
The Australian Conservation Foundation echoed GetUp’s stance, declaring the current policy “unsupportable” because the emissions reduction target is insufficient to see Australia meet its commitments under the Paris agreement, and the policy as drafted makes it difficult to adjust the level of ambition.
The ACF’s Gavan McFadzean said: “What every state and territory government needs to understand is that if they sign up to this Neg, they own it and its woefully inadequate 26% pollution reduction target, locked in to 2030.
“It won’t be just Malcolm Turnbull’s Neg, or Tony Abbott’s, but Daniel Andrews’ and Annastacia Palaszczuk’s as well.”
The Turnbull government needs the backing of states that are in the national electricity market to implement the Neg, with any one jurisdiction possessing the power to kill the scheme.
Business groups have lined up in support of the Neg, urging a truce in the decade-long toxic political battle over climate and energy policy. They want a settled policy mechanism to give energy market participants certainty to invest.
Privately, some business stakeholders would also be relaxed about the commonwealth legislating a scheme that would make ramping up the level of ambition in the emissions reduction target easier to achieve – understanding that could help get the Labor states over the line on the mechanism.
But adding that flexibility could sink the policy when it returns for consideration by the Coalition party room, assuming the states don’t end it first.
The energy policy fight has been complicated in recent weeks by a renewed push by some Nationals and conservative Liberals to make ongoing support for coal part of the quid pro quo for supporting the Neg.
The states are also processing a new report this week from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, which recommended major changes to the electricity market, including the commonwealth underwriting new generation projects in order to get more competition into the system and lower prices for consumers.
The energy minister, Josh Frydenberg, has added the new ACCC report to the agenda for discussion at the critical August meeting.
Nationals this week have attempted to front-run the debate and shape public perceptions of the report by claiming the ACCC investigation supports government backing of new coal generation, when the relevant recommendation is clearly technology-neutral.
The ACT’s climate change minister, Shane Rattenbury, told Guardian Australia the report was being used by Liberals and Nationals “shamelessly to back up each of their internal arguments about the Neg”.
He warned: “Unless the Coalition sorts out what the Neg will finally look like, it will be impossible for Coag to endorse or reject it.”
Frydenberg and the prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, have both said the proposed government underwriting would apply to all technologies that met the criteria, including, potentially, coal projects, as well as gas and renewables with battery back-up.
But Turnbull has also pushed back against the Nationals. On Thursday Turnbull said: “We are not in the business of subsidising one technology or another. We’ve done enough of that. I mean, frankly, too much of that has been done.”
He said subsidies for various forms of energy were in the process of winding down “and we should simply allow the technologies to compete”.
Turnbull said the outcome the government was seeking was lower energy prices.
The shadow federal climate change minister, Mark Butler, has declared it is a “fantasy” that anyone would seek to build a new coal-fired power station underwritten by the commonwealth, and he warned government MPs against hijacking a useful investigation by Australia’s competition watchdog.
Butler said the idea of the government underwriting new market entrants with generation projects was an idea “very worthy of consideration, but unfortunately it’s already been hijacked by these ideological zealots in the Coalition party room”.
“Everyone in the industry has recognised that building new coal-fired power stations, one isn’t suitable for the nature of the market in the future; it’s not sufficiently flexible, it’s more expensive than other power options, but also there is very substantial carbon risk, regulatory risk, price risk, associated with building new, high polluting, or high emitting assets,” Butler said.
“That’s why the industry won’t go near it, investors, bankers, won’t go near it, because they understand quite how risky it is.”

Links