 |
"Right now, we are facing a man-made disaster of global scale. Our greatest threat in thousands of years. Climate change."
This was a message recently delivered by renowned naturalist Sir David Attenborough. And he meant it for our politicians."Leaders of the world, you must lead. The continuation of civilisations and the natural world upon which we depend is in your hands."
Globally this message — and others like it — seem to have been heard by the community. School students are striking. People are marching. Authorities are issuing warnings and businesses are doing what they can to adapt to changes already seen and predicted.
What policies need to achieve is clear both in the science and international agreements: net greenhouse gas emissions — mostly from burning coal and other fossil fuels — must be reduced to zero.
both major parties are spruiking their climate credentials ahead of this month's federal election.
Bill Shorten is offering stronger targets and policies, while Scott Morrison is proposing taking less action, on the grounds that this will be cheaper.
The Greens are calling for much stronger action and other parties have a range of views.
With the fundamental science of climate change settled, what does that science tell us about the adequacy of those policies? And do they compare to the demands of international agreements, and the action taken by other countries?
Morrison's target
Australia's current target for 2030, put in place by Tony Abbott, is to reduce our emissions by at least 26 per cent below 2005 levels.
According to the Government's Climate Change Authority, that target puts "Australia at or near the bottom of the group of countries we generally compare ourselves with".
Professor Andy Pitman, head of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of NSW says the Coalition's target — if replicated by other countries — isn't nearly enough to avoid two degrees of global warming.
He says the 26 per cent cut to emissions is "about a third" of what's needed.
Using an accounting measure rejected by many comparable nations, the Coalition plans to reduce that target to what is effectively about a 16 per cent cut — cashing in "carry-over credits" claimed by beating earlier targets.
The Coalition hasn't indicated what further targets it may commit to for decades following 2030.
Radio National Breakfast last week, Energy Minister Angus Taylor said "a successful Paris Agreement" was what mattered, and proposing stronger targets would be "going way beyond what is required to meet our Paris obligations".
But a successful Paris Agreement means stopping global warming — not just meeting whatever targets we put forward in 2015.
Specifically, the Paris Agreement demands that Australia "pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5C" and binds countries to stop global warming "well below 2C".
Our existing targets are not compatible with achieving that.
So if the Paris Agreement is the measure of success, those targets will need to be increased very rapidly. In fact, the Paris Agreement demands that the world aim for net zero emissions in the second half of the century — or sooner for rich countries like Australia.
The Coalition targets are a long way from what the science demands and will require a rapid ratchet to catch up with commitments made in the Paris Agreement.Shorten's target
The Labor Party has ruled out the use of carry-over credits and said it will strengthen Australia's 2030 target to 45 per cent.
Speaking to the ABC's 7.30 program, Mr Shorten said of the target: "I didn't pluck that out of nowhere. That was the Paris agreement. That's what the scientists tell us."
Director of the Centre for Climate Economics and Policy at ANU Professor Frank Jotzo says Labor's target "will be seen as a strong target for Australia".
According to earlier analysis by the Climate Change Authority, it would place us below what the UK is doing, but above what the US and EU are currently pledging.
But Professor Pitman says it still won't mean Australia does its fair share to stop global warming at below 2C, so it would need significant ratcheting to comply with the aims of the Paris Agreement.
"There is a fundamental misunderstanding I think across western governments on how deep the emission cuts need to be to achieve the 2 degree limit on warming," says Professor Pitman.
That view is backed by the Climate Change Authority, which has recommended a range of targets for Australia: somewhere between 45 per cent and 63 per cent. By that recommendation, Labor's target just scrapes in at the bottom end.
Labor has also said it will aim to reduce net carbon emissions to zero by 2050. The same target has been discussed by the EU and has just been recommended to the UK by its official climate adviser.
"If implemented globally that would be a good and strong target," Professor Pitman says.Dr Bill Hare from Climate Analytics says Labor's 2030 target of 45 per cent isn't consistent with the Paris Agreement, but assuming the 2050 target of a 100 per cent cut in emissions is accounted for rigorously, that would be consistent.
Shorten and Morrison clash over electric cars in leaders' debate (ABC News)
Can the policies cut all emissions?
Another important measure is whether the policies offered are scalable to help Australia eliminate greenhouse gas emissions entirely in the next few decades.
The centrepiece of the Coalition's policy is Tony Abbott's Emissions Reduction Fund — now called the Climate Solutions Fund.
Fundamentally, it uses taxpayer money to pay polluters to pollute less.
Professor Jotzo says the policy will not scale-up in a cost-effective way.
"The emissions fund will reduce Australia's emissions piece-by-piece, project-by-project but ... it is not a mechanism that will allow comprehensive action."
Scott Morrison outlines his new climate change policy (ABC News)
Without an overarching policy to systematically drive down emissions in any sector, the Coalition also announced a range of policies subsidising specific projects such as Snowy Hydro 2.0, more pumped hydropower in Tasmania ("Battery of the Nation") and an undersea cable to help transport that hydropower to the mainland.
But Professor Pitman says that's not enough: "There's nothing wrong with any of those policies. The question is whether the scaling of those policies is sufficient to cut Australia's emissions proportionately ... to avoid 2 degrees."
And the Coalition has not proposed any systematic way of reducing emissions from the electricity sector — the biggest contributor to emissions, and the sector considered the easiest and cheapest to clean up.
Mr Shorten has proposed expanding the Coalition's existing cap-and-trade system (the "safeguard mechanism") to cover more large businesses, and instituting something like the Coalition's abandoned National Energy Guarantee, to drive down emissions from both industry and the electricity sector.
A range of Labor policies cover other areas — including an electric vehicle policy, a renewable energy target and controls on land clearing.
Given a simple economy-wide carbon price has become a political no-go zone, Labor has tackled each sector of the economy separately.
Professor Jotzo says the details on some of the policies are lacking, but together they could "deliver emissions reductions across the economy, which is ultimately what is needed".
And what of the Greens?
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Greens have called for much stronger action — phasing out coal exports by 2030, reaching net zero emissions by 2040, and a new public authority called Renew Australia, which would oversee the transition to a zero-carbon economy.
In a minority government, these ambitions could influence final policy outcomes.
Dr Hare says some aspects of the Labor and Greens policies are not entirely consistent with the Paris Agreement, but they could be adjusted to be.
"Structurally, both the ALP and Greens policies are capable of being ratcheted up," he says. "The Coalition doesn't have policies that could be ratcheted up."Australia is small — do we matter?
Australia produces just 1.3 per cent of global emissions — but that is no small amount. We have one of the highest emissions per capita, and similar total emissions to the UK.
Professor Pitman concedes that if Australia eliminated its emissions completely, and every other country did nothing, it would have virtually no impact on global warming.
But that's not the point, he says. "If we're not cutting emissions we have no leverage, no influence, no moral right to ask other countries to do the same."
Professor Jotzo says this is the approach Australia takes to a range of other issues.
"We do our bit — which is often not a very large bit — on every significant issue of international cooperation: We send troops to where there's peacekeeping action to be supported. We support the global effort in aid. We support the global effort in developing new medicines."
Professor Pitman says Australia has a "vested interest" in taking a lead on climate action.
"We are vulnerable to heat. We're vulnerable to flood. Our ecosystems seem to be quite vulnerable like the Barrier Reef and so forth."
Links
- Vote Compass finds economy and environment most important issues
- How the federal election will change Australia's response to climate change
- Is giving up flying the best way to stop climate change?
- Are humans making droughts worse?
- The Rising Temperature Of Climate Change Politics
- Coalition Is To Blame For Uncertainty Over Climate Costs
- Tim Winton: Our Leaders Are Ignoring Global Warming To The Point Of Criminal Negligence. It's Unforgivable
- Support For Action Surges, As Majority Say We Face Climate Emergency
- Australia’s Election Is A Chance To Regain Our Leadership On Climate Change
- Both Parties Still In Climate Policy Black Hole
- A Climate Reckoning Is Coming To Our Political Hothouse
- Experts Find 'Integrity Issues' With Coalition's Direct Action Policy
- The Next Reckoning: Capitalism And Climate Change
No comments :
Post a Comment