Citizens’ Climate Lobby

Citizens’ Climate Lobby

<snip>
We’re creating the political will for a livable world by empowering individuals to experience breakthroughs in exercising their personal and political power.
About CCL

CCL was established in the US in 2008 – It now has well over 200 local chapters and is growing steadily. We are now building in Australia and aim to have groups in every Federal electorate. If you find these short videos inspiring you would be most welcome to join us here.
</snip>

Tim Flannery's Message Of Hope

Canberra Times

Hope isn't a word that often comes to mind amid the rancour over climate change. But that's the term Tim Flannery has chosen to sum up his latest assessment of our climate future.
In a new book the high-profile scientist "brings news of tools in the making" that could help avoid the climate catastrophe he has long warned about. The upbeat title – Atmosphere of Hope: Searching for solutions to the climate crisis – stems from Flannery's investigation of nascent technologies with the potential to draw large amounts of carbon out of the atmosphere. There are no silver bullets, but together they provide grounds for optimism about humanity's capacity to deal effectively with global warming. "It is possible the next decade will astonish us with the solutions that we discover to safeguard our planet for our grandchildren and their grandchildren," he writes.
That's not to say the world's climate predicament has diminished. Speaking in Sydney to Fairfax Media this week, Flannery warns the challenge is "now gargantuan" and that deep, rapid cuts in greenhouse gas emissions are urgently required. "We need new tools because we've now been emitting carbon pollution at a worst-case scenario rate for a decade," he said. "There is great inertia in the system that will carry us into increasingly dangerous climate territory."
Flannery predicts addressing climate change will "define the lives of generations". Even so, he is buoyed by a clutch of innovative technologies and strategies he labels a "third way" to address climate change. "The reason I have that hopeful perspective is because I researched these new third way technologies and realised they really do have the potential to pull us back from the brink," Flannery said. "I think a lot of people will be surprised by that and I hope it energises people."
Flannery labels them a "third way" because they are distinct from the two other well-known strategies to combat climate change – emission reduction and geoengineering schemes to interfere in the climate system. The most concrete and well-costed geoengineering proposal is for sulphur to be injected into the earth's stratosphere to reflect sunlight back into space, allowing the planet's surface to cool. The oceans have also been proposed as a venue for large-scale interventions to combat global warming. One suggestion is to add iron to the oceans to stimulate biological growth that absorbs CO₂ from the air and eventually sinks to the seabed. But these geoengineering options are untested, and could have dangerous side effects. Flannery says they are tantamount to "using poison to fight a poison".
Flannery says the third way alternatives he has identified are very different from radical geoengineering proposals because they "recreate, enhance or restore" the processes that created a balance of greenhouse gasses prior to human interference. "They do not seek to fight one poison [excess carbon] with another [for example sulphur]," he writes. "Instead they look to restore or learn from processes that are as old as life itself. The third way is in large part about creating our future out of thin air." This encompasses proposals and experiments that mostly draw CO₂ out of the air and sea at a faster rate than occurs presently, and to store it safely. "It's what plants and a fair few rocks do."
Some third way alternatives are already quite well-known, such as large-scale reafforestation and the addition of biochar to the soil. Biochar is a type of charcoal produced from the slow, oxygen-free burning of organic material. Creating biochar stores carbon for long periods and can be added to soil and improve soil quality. But Flannery sees even greater potential in less familiar methods to draw carbon from the atmosphere including large-scale seaweed farming, the manufacture of carbon-negative cement and new techniques for making plastic that draws CO₂ from the air. He canvasses strategies to absorb CO₂ by the "enhanced weathering" of silicate rocks and even making "CO₂ snow" in the Antarctic that could be stored in ice pits. Scientists are also investigating how the earth's albedo, or reflectiveness, could help cool the planet. By painting infrastructure white, cities might offset some of the warming they are now experiencing.
In Flannery's assessment third way strategies could together be pulling about four gigatonnes of carbon out of the atmosphere a year by 2050, about 40 per cent of current emissions. "These are the technologies we need to be focussing on, that will give us a future," he says. But these innovations will only be effective if major investments are made in developing them now. "It's a bit like solar," Flannery says. "For the last 30 years solar PV has been reducing its cost by about 10 per cent per annum but for 25 of those 30 years it was still outrageously expensive and wasn't really competitive … Many of these third way technologies are the same – we need to start investing in them now to make sure we have the tools there in future when we really need them, in 2030 or 2040 as the climate crisis deepens. Then we will be really searching for ways to deal with this and the only way we'll have the tools is if we start investing now."
Flannery has become a favourite target of climate change sceptics who accuse him of exaggerating the threat of global warming and of "quasi-religious" activism. He was the chief commissioner of the Climate Commission, a body established by the Gillard government to provide information on climate change before it was disbanded by the Abbott government. He's now a member of the Climate Council, which is independent and funded by the community. Despite the bitterness of climate change politics Flannery doesn't regret the spirited warnings he has issued in the past about the danger posed by climate change. Although he does say some of his commentary could have been "more precise".
"Sure they have pilloried me but that's the cost of progress," he said. "If you are effective you will get attacked. You just wear that as a badge of honour … I'd worry if they stopped attacking me." Flannery says most of the climate science he wrote about a decade ago in his bestselling book The Weather Makers has "stood the test of time."
He is adamant deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions are needed despite the potential of the new technologies described in his new book. Flannery thinks there's only a 50-50 chance that any international agreement reached at the United Nations Climate Change Summit to be held in Paris later this year will limit average global temperatures to no more than 2 degrees Celsius warmer than the pre-industrial average. He is critical of the Abbott government's pre-summit commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions so they are 26-28 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. "That is clearly very inadequate both to stay within the 2 degrees and in terms of what is happening elsewhere in the world," Flannery said.
But he points out the Abbott government's direct action plan to tackle climate change encourages the use of some third way technologies identified by Flannery, especially biochar. "I'd say to the Australian government, in terms of the direct action policy, why not look more widely across these third way technologies and decide where the real opportunities are for Australia and reconceptualise the issue a bit," he says. Some of these new technologies have the potential to turn huge profits as well as helping to combat climate change. "What I really wanted to do in the book is refocus people's perceptions about the tools available to deal with the climate challenge, especially these third way technologies," Flannery said. "We are going to need them in future."

Reasons for climate hope
The new breed of "third way" technologies that could help avert climate disaster:

• Seaweed farms – the cultivation of seaweed could be used to absorb CO₂ efficiently and on a large scale.
• Carbon-negative cement – the manufacture of cement contributes about 5 per cent of green house gas emissions but new methods of cement production are being developed that allow CO₂ to be absorbed and sequestered in cement over long periods.
• Carbon-negative plastic – plastics are now oil-based but carbon-capture technologies have been developed that combine air with methane-based greenhouse gas emissions to produce a plastic material.
• New carbon capture and storage – Conditions in some places on earth might allow the storage of CO₂ in liquid of solid form. One idea is to use the pressure deep in the ocean to keep CO₂in liquid or solid form. Another is to capture and store CO₂ in the Antarctic as dry ice or CO₂ snow.

Youth Sue Obama Administration For Allowing Climate Change

Huffington Post

Twenty-one young people from around the country filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration on Tuesday accusing the federal government of violating their rights by contributing to climate change through the promotion of fossil fuels.
The plaintiffs, who range in age from 8 to 19, filed their complaint in U.S. District Court in Oregon. The complaint lists numerous defendants, including President Barack Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry, the Department of Energy, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency.
"Defendants have for decades ignored their own plans for stopping the dangerous destabilization of our nation's climate system," the plaintiffs said in their complaint, which was filed with the help of the Oregon-based nonprofit Our Children's Trust. "Defendants have known of the unusually dangerous risk of harm to human life, liberty, and property that would be caused by continued fossil fuel use and increase [carbon dioxide] emissions."
While setting new policies to reduce carbon emissions, the Obama administration has often touted an "all of the above" approach to energy policy that includes oil, natural gas, coal and renewable energy, the complaint continues. By continuing to promote the development and use of fossil fuels, the federal government violated their constitutional rights, the young plaintiffs allege.
"What we are providing is an opportunity for them to participate in the civic democratic process and go to the branch of government that can most protect their rights," said Julia Olson, the lead counsel on the case.
Olson, a public interest attorney, has been working closely with plaintiff Xiuhtezcatl Martinez, 15, since 2011. It was Martinez who originally asked Olson to prepare the case against the United States government.
Martinez, who serves as the youth director for Earth Guardians, spoke before the United Nations General Assembly in June and demanded world leaders take action against climate change. It was his third time addressing the United Nations.
Climate change threatens the forests surrounding Martinez's home in Boulder, Colorado, and will lead to a scarcity of water, the complaint says. Another plaintiff, 18-year-old Alexander Lozak, said that extreme drought conditions are threatening the Oregon land that his great, great, great, great, grandmother first farmed.
"The health and bodily integrity of his family and their farm, which they rely on for food and as a source of income—as well as for their personal well-being—increasingly are harmed by climate change caused by Defendants," the complaint says.
The youngest plaintiff, 8-year-old Levi Draheim, said he can no longer swim in the river near his home in Indialantic, Florida, because of an increase in bacteria and fish die-offs.
In response to the complaint, the Environmental Protection Agency defended its work to confront climate change, which it described as "the biggest environmental challenge we face."
"That's why President Obama launched the Climate Action Plan and why EPA is taking action with our Clean Power Plan: to give our kids and grandkids the cleaner, safer future they deserve," Laura Allen, deputy press secretary for the EPA, said in a statement to The Huffington Post. "We have a moral obligation to leave a healthy planet for future generations."
"A child born today will turn fifteen in the year 2030 – the year when the full benefits of the Clean Power Plan will be realized," Allen added. "The actions we take now will clear the way for that child – and kids everywhere – to learn, play, and grow up in a world that’s not only clean and safe, but full of opportunity."
In early August, Obama called climate change "one of the key challenges of our lifetime."
"We're the first generation to feel the effects of climate change and the last generation that can do something about it," the president told an audience at an event in the White House's East Room, where he unveiled new regulations on emissions from power plants.
But in the eyes of Olson and the plaintiffs, that's not enough. They are asking for a court order to force Obama to immediately implement a national plan to decrease atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide to 350 parts per million -- a level many scientists agree is the highest safe concentration permissible -- by the end of this century. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has already hit 400 parts per million.
"It's really important that the court step in and do their jobs when there's such intense violation of constitutional rights happening," Olson said.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Review: Emissions Reduction Target

CLIMATE COUNCIL

The Australian Government has announced that it will cut emissions by 26%-28% on 2005 levels by 2030, far below the 45-65% target recommended by the Climate Change Authority (or 40 to 60% on 2000 levels).
There are two key tests for an emissions reduction target:

1. Is it grounded in science? This would mean Australia is playing its role in keeping global temperature rise below 2°C, which is critical to protecting Australia in the long-term from the worsening impacts of climate change, like more frequent and terrible extreme weather.
2. Are we doing our bit internationally?

Not only are the targets vastly inadequate to protect Australians from the impacts of climate change, they simply don’t represent a fair contribution to the world effort to bring climate change under control.
Over the last 6 months Australia has attracted significant criticism from our trading partners,including China and the U.S., over concerns that we’re free-riding on the backs of other countries’ efforts to tackle climate change. Former UN chief Kofi Annan said we’re not doing our bit, stating that Ethiopia and Rwanda are even doing more than Australia. Today’s announcement will only reinforce this criticism.
As the 13th largest emitter in the world, Australia is a crucial global climate change player - larger than 180 other countries. We’re also one of the largest consumers of coal per capita, and one of the most pollution-intensive economies in the world. Even if we reduce our emissions by 26% by 2030, we’ll emit 3 times more per person than the UK and 1.5 times more than the USA.
Tackling climate change is firmly in Australia’s national interest – it’s about protecting the Great Barrier Reef, protecting Australians against worsening heatwaves and bushfire conditions, and protecting our coastal communities from sea-level rise.
These targets fall short of the science, they fall short of global action and they fall short of what’s necessary to protect Australians from the impacts of climate change. By every measure, they fail to make the grade.
We’ve pulled together a list of key details that will help you cut through the spin, and get straight to the facts.

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW:
1. Why do targets matter?
The Government is setting a target for how much pollution Australia will reduce in the next 15 years. Emissions reduction targets demonstrate how serious we are about tackling climate change and how quickly we intend to drive our economy away from polluting energy sources like coal, towards clean power sources like solar and wind.
Australians are already feeling the impacts of climate change. Hot days have doubled, heatwaves are becoming hotter and longer. Heatwaves kill more Australians than any other natural hazard, particularly vulnerable people like the very old and very young. Setting pollution reduction targets are crucial to tackling climate change.
2. Are the targets announced by the government adequate?
The targets are out of step with the science.
Australia, along with 193 other countries, has agreed that keeping global temperature rise below 2°C is necessary to avoid the most dangerous impacts of climate change.
Australia’s leading climate policy advisory body the Climate Change Authority (consisting of top scientists, economists and business leaders) has done the analysis, and found we need to reduce pollution by a bare minimum of 45% on 2005 levels (or 40% on 2000 levels) to give us a reasonable chance of meeting that goal. Unfortunately, the announced targets are about half of what is needed.
Australia is already experiencing damaging climate change impacts with just 0.9°C of warming, including longer, hotter and more intense heatwaves; more frequent and intense droughts; and more frequent and severe high fire danger weather.
These targets are too weak to put Australia and the world on the path of staying below a 2°C rise in global temperature and won’t protect Australians from worsening extreme weather.
Australia is one of the most pollution intensive economies in the developed world, and these targets mean that Australia will remain one of the most pollution intensive economies in the world.
The targets are out of step with the rest of the world.
Australia is one of the highest per capita emitters in the world. For example, on a per capita basis Australians emit more than the Europeans or Chinese. Australia is also the 13th largest overall emitter in the world, larger than 180 other nations.
The targets announced today mean that Australia will:

• continue to have one of the highest emissions per capita rates in the world, higher than its major trading allies (such as the USA, China, Japan and the EU).
• have low annual rates of emissions reduction, meaning most countries would be reducing emission quicker than us.
• have a lower absolute target than other nations. As ANU economist Professor Frank Jotzo stated today, “Australia’s target for reduction in absolute emissions is significantly weaker than that of the United States and the EU, weaker than Canada’s, and on par with Japan’s.”

The Climate Authority analysis mentioned above found that we need a minimum emissions reduction target of 45% on 2005 levels to be in line with our allies and trading partners.
For the full details of how the world is tracking on climate change, check out our latest report, Halfway to Paris.
3. What science is Australia’s emissions reduction target based on?
It's important that Australia’s climate response be grounded in good science. As we've stated above, that would mean a target of a bare minimum of 45% by 2030. The government’s targets are significantly below this, and it's unclear what scientific basis the government has used to make its assessment.
4. Are other countries on track to meet their 2020 emissions reduction targets?
Many of the world’s economies are on track to meet their 2020 emissions targets. Case in point, the European Union (which comprises 28 countries and some of the world’s largest economies like Germany and the UK) has decreased emissions by 19% below 1990 levels already, and is looking to redouble its efforts post 2020. The European Union has a reduction target of 40% by 2030 relative to 1990 levels.
The U.S., once considered a climate laggard, is now on track to meet its 2020 emissions reduction targets, particularly given President Obama’s recent commitments.
5. Is Australia’s target the same as the U.S?
No. The U.S. has an emissions reduction target of 26-28% by 2025 on 2005 levels. They are aiming to achieve this reduction 5 years earlier than Australia.
6. Is Australia on track to meet its 2020 target?
On current trajectories it's not clear that Australia will achieve its 2020 target of a 5% reduction on 2000 - the 2014 UN Emissions Gap Report has found that Australia is no longer on track to meet its 2020 emissions reduction target, due to a variety of reasons including a lack of strong domestic policies.
7. Will a strong emissions reduction target damage the economy?
ClimateWorks has found that Australia could achieve a 50% emissions reduction target by 2030 with existing technology and while growing the economy.
In 2014 global emissions stalled whilst the economy grew and nations took action on climate change. The International Energy Agency found that in 2014, for the first time in 40 years, energy-related global emissions of carbon dioxide stalled, while the world’s economy continued to grow. At the same time nations around the world were moving to lower their emissions. For example in early 2014, 144 countries had renewable energy targets and 138 had renewable energy support policies in place.

It's important to remember that the cost of inaction is extremely high:

• Sea level rise will cost billions. For instance, a sea level rise of 1.1m exposes more than $226 billion in commercial, industrial, road, rail and residential assets around Australian coasts to flooding and erosion.
• Heatwaves cost Australian lives each year. Heatwaves have killed more Australians than any other natural disaster and deaths from heatwaves are projected to double over the next 40 years in Australian cities.
• The cost of the impact of coal on health is measured in millions. The Hunter Valley Coal’s annual health bill is $600 million per year according to the latest Climate and Health Alliance report.
• The cost of bushfires in Australia is measured in billions. In the decade up to 30 June 2013 the insured losses due to bushfires in Australia totalled $1.6 billion. This translates to an average loss of approximately $160 million per year over the period.
• Drought will affect Australia’s GDP. From 2020 onwards, the predicted increase in drought frequency is estimated to cost $7.3 billion annually, reducing GDP by 1% per annum.

The world’s economies are moving and Australia risks being left behind. The world is moving away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy, with more clean energy capacity being added per year than fossil fuels. In fact, by 2030, more than four times as much renewable capacity will be added in comparison to fossil fuels. And all the while, Australia is missing out on the global renewable energy boom.

26% Target 'Does Not Stack Up'

David Rossiter, former greenhouse energy and data officer, Royalla, NSW 
Canberra Times Letter to the Editor

At the Copenhagen climate change meeting in 2009, Australia joined around 150 other countries in committing to ensuring that global warming did not exceed 2 degrees.
Experts have estimated that this equates to a total world budget of 565 billion tonnes of carbon emissions. Australia's share of this would be about 10.1 billion tonnes beyond 2013. It sounds like a lot, but with no significant reduction from the emissions of some 550 million tonnes yearly, our budget would be used up by about 2032.
The Abbott Government's announcement of a new target of 26 per cent emissions reduction by 2030 (based on 2005 emissions) will only marginally improve that situation.
The new emissions reduction target translates to a numeric target of 450 million tonnes a year for the year 2030.
Assuming a steady drop in emissions from now to 2030 (and how this will be achieved is another question entirely), we will have used about 8 of our 10.1 billion tonnes by 2030.
The remaining allocation of 2.1 billion tonnes is likely to be used up by 2034 or 2035.
We can expect huge international pressure to remain within our 10.1 billion tonne allocation.
On this basis, therefore, we should aim to transition to a zero-carbon economy by 2035. A gentler transition to a zero-carbon economy over 30 or 40 years is possible, but only if the targets set now are more realistic and robust, say 40 per cent or 50 per cent by 2030.
In this context, Tony Abbott's comment that the 26 per cent target is both economically and environmentally responsible does not actually stack up.
He is simply making it much more difficult for future governments to manage a smooth transition to a zero-carbon economy.

Australia's Reduction Target 'Pathetic'

The Guardian

Australia’s “pathetic” 2030 emissions reduction target shows the country has opted out of the global effort to limit warming, according to the head of the British government’s climate change advisory body.
Lord Deben, previously a minister in the government of Conservative prime minister Margaret Thatcher, said Australia’s 26% to 28% reduction in emissions by 2030, based on 2005 levels was “simply not enough”.
“Australia is fundamentally out of step and this decision puts Australia among the ‘don’t cares’ of the international community,” said Deben, who is the chairman of the Committee on Climate Change.
“Global warming won’t wait for Mr Abbott and his government. Mr Abbott’s hubris is staggering.”
Deben, formerly known as John Gummer, said Australia’s “pathetic” target showed it had “opted out of the greatest physical challenge of our times” and ignored the leadership of US president Barack Obama, the European Union and Pope Francis.
“Australia’s friends know she could do so much better than this and all of us abroad will work with all those people who are determined to overturn this irrational decision,” he said.
The condemnation of Australia’s climate commitment, to be taken to crunch international talks in Paris later this year, was echoed by the foreign minister of the Marshall Islands – one of the low-lying Pacific nations at acute risk from sea level rises.
“Australia’s weak target is another serious blow to its international reputation,” said Tony de Brum.
“As with prime minister Abbott’s attempt to ignore climate change when hosting the G20 last year, this will send a serious shudder through the Pacific and raise concern amongst its closest allies, including the United States and Europe.”
De Brum, who has repeatedly called on Australia to show regional leadership on climate change, said it was disappointing Abbott had not embraced clean energy more readily.
“If the rest of the world followed Australia’s lead, the Great Barrier Reef would disappear,” he said. “So would my country, and the other vulnerable atoll nations on Australia’s doorstep.”
Tony Abbott has defended yesterday’s announcement of Australia’s post-2020 emissions target, insisting it was “highly comparable” to what other industrialised countries have committed to.
“This is a very respectable figure, it’s environmentally responsible – and above all else, it’s economically responsible,” he told the ABC on Wednesday.
“We are confident we can achieve this without clobbering jobs and growth because in the end that’s what we want – we want more jobs and we want higher economic growth because that means more prosperity.
“We are not expecting a reduction in the coal industry. Obviously in the ordinary course of events some mines will close, but I suspect more mines will open.”
Environmentalists have lambasted Australia’s target, although comparisons to other countries are not straightforward due to the differing starting points for emissions cuts. According to Bloomberg New Energy finance, Australia’s emissions pledge is less ambitious than the EU and US, but more ambitious than Japan and South Korea.
When commitments are translated to the 2005 baseline year used by Australia, it appears the 26% to 28% reduction is towards the lower end when compared to other countries.
The US has a 26% to 28% reduction target, but for five years earlier in 2025. The equivalent 2030 target is 41%. The UK has a 50% reduction by 2025, based on 1990 levels, which translates as a 48% cut when compared directly to Australia’s 2005 baseline.
New Zealand, Germany, Switzerland, the EU and Canada also have greater planned cuts than Australia when their commitments are considered with a 2005 starting point.
Conversely, Japan and Norway have weaker targets than Australia. China, the world’s largest emitter, has no set reduction target beyond a pledge its carbon dioxide emissions will peak by 2030.
The government’s independent Climate Change Authority recommended emissions be slashed between 45% to 65% by 2030, based on 2005 levels. The decision not to adopt this recommendation means Australia will remain the highest per capita emitter in the industrialised world.
Beyond the target itself, there are serious questions over whether the Coalition has adequate policies to accelerate emissions cuts. Just $200m a year until 2030 has been set aside to buy abated emissions through the Direct Action plan, despite several studies of the plan showing it won’t be sufficient.
The Australian Industry Group, which represents more than 60,000 businesses, said the Direct Action emission reduction fund would need between $100bn and $250bn in taxpayer funds in the decade to 2030 to reach the target. The Climate Institute estimates the cost at between $28bn to $200bn.
The government is pinning a large portion of its emissions cuts on “other” means of reductions, including technology changes that do not yet exist. A price on carbon, which was dismantled last year, will not return under the Coalition due to its insistence it will drive up electricity prices and cause job losses.

Climate Change: CSIRO Axes Annual Attitudes Survey

SMH

The CSIRO has cancelled its annual survey of Australians' attitudes to climate change and won't release the results of its 2014 study until late this year.
The delay, says Labor, means the public will miss out on information that counters the Abbott government's "scare campaign" on climate issues.
The science agency had conducted the annual survey for five years, mostly in July and August, often polling the same people to create a long-term view of how Australians view global warming and their support for action.
In the most recent published report, released in February 2014, about 40 per cent of the 5219 people surveyed had participated in a previous study.
In the 2013 poll, 86 per cent agreed with the statement that climate change was occurring and 7.6 per cent disagreed.
CSIRO conducted another survey last year but the findings will be about 14 months old by the time it is released. It is understood financial constraints are a factor behind the change.
The CSIRO's funding has been cut several times in recent years, including $111 million in the first Abbott government budget. The cuts were expected to lead to the loss of as many as a fifth of its staff over two years.
"We are currently in the process of analysing the results, which will be communicated by the end of the October," a spokeswoman said. "We have no plans at the moment for further surveys."
News of the cancelled surveys comes as the Abbott government is expected to release its post-2020 carbon reduction goals on Tuesday that it will take to the global climate summit planned for Paris starting November 30.
The government on Tuesday announced Australia would aim to reduced greenhouse gas emissions by about 26-28 per cent of 2005 levels by 2030.
That goal, which is about a 19 per cent reduction on 2000 levels, would be among the least ambitious by an industrialised nation, according to data compiled by the Climate Change Authority. Australia should be aiming for a 40 to 60 per cent reduction by then, the agency said in a recent report.
Most surveys find Australians overwhelmingly support action on climate change, with about two in three people saying the government should take the issue more seriously, according to a report released on Monday by the Climate Institute.
A spokeswoman for Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane said the issue was one for the CSIRO to address: "CSIRO manages its own day-to-day decisions and allocation of resources, so it's not something the Minister would comment on."

'Sick' of reports
"Tony Abbott is sick of all the reports that show Australians want climate change action," said Mark Butler, Labor's climate change spokesman.
"This is obviously at odds with Tony Abbott's views on climate change, and he would prefer to keep ignoring the problem," Mr Butler said. "Removing this important report from the public domain shows Tony Abbott's general disregard for science, but also his frustration that his scare campaigns on climate change are not working."
Greens deputy leader and environment spokeswoman Larissa Waters said the government's "pathetic" carbon reduction targets indicate it is beholden to its "big polluting donors".
"The Abbott government needs to start listening to everyday Australians scientists and the international community, instead of blocking his ears and acting as a puppet for the dying coal industry," Senator Waters said.
Last year's report found that attitudes to climate change had "remained relatively stable since 2010", with repeat respondents increasing their levels of trust in agencies "including environmental group scientists and government scientists to provide truthful information about climate change".

Stable view
Separately, a study by researchers in the US and CSIRO, has found that public acceptance and support for action on carbon pricing held steady during the two weeks before and after the 2013 federal election.
Despite the carbon tax issue being one of the most contentious during the run-up, support remained little changed during the elections, the researchers including Iain Walker, who works at CSIRO and the University of WA, found.
"[T]he carbon pricing legislation was not as unpopular as many, especially on the conservative side of politics claimed, with nearly half of the population finding the policy acceptable..," according to the paper published this week in the Nature Climate Change journal.
Acceptance of carbon prices was higher than support for the policy, however, implying that future proponents of such policies should design their approach to deal with acceptance and support differently, the researchers said.
"Future research should attempt to disentangle opposition from lack of support, ambivalence from apathy, and 'rejection' from 'resistance'," the paper said.