Abbott's Smoke And Mirrors Before Paris Climate Summit

THE SATURDAY PAPER

Imagine, if you will, two people planning to go on a diet. One of them is a moderately fit but overweight bloke weighing, say, 100 kilograms. The other is morbidly obese, and weighs twice as much.
Time passes and they both shed weight. Now the formerly overweight bloke has reached his ideal weight of  75 kilograms.
The obese guy has lost the same amount, in percentage terms. But he still weighs 150 kilos. He’s still grossly overweight. Clearly, for the sake of his health, he has to lose a lot more.
We use the analogy to point to one of the several specious arguments Prime Minister Tony Abbott has been using to create the impression – the false impression – that his government is serious about acting to limit climate change.
After the announcement of the government’s long-awaited new target for greenhouse gas emissions last week – a reduction of 26 per cent, and possibly 28 per cent on 2005 levels, by 2030 – Abbott fronted the media to insist it was “foursquare in the middle” of the pledges made by other nations ahead of the United Nations climate summit in Paris at year’s end.
“It’s better than Japan,” he boasted. “It’s almost the same as New Zealand. It’s a whisker below Canada. It’s a little below Europe. It’s about the same as the United States. It’s vastly better than Korea. Of course, it is unimaginably better than China.”
Except, of course, none of this is true.
The Australian government’s target is not in the middle of the range, and Abbott had no right to be satisfied, for exactly the same reason the hypothetical morbidly obese man above should not be satisfied with his weight-loss achievement.
In greenhouse gas terms, Australia starts out as the obese man in the developed world, and will still be the obese one in 2030.
Let’s go to some of the examples. Japan, as Abbott noted, has set a target slightly less ambitious in percentage terms than Australia’s: 25 per cent by 2030, compared with 26. But when you look a little closer, it’s immediately apparent that the percentage reduction is not the significant measure. What counts is the weight at the end of the process. In 2030, assuming it reaches its goal, Japan will produce the equivalent of eight tonnes of carbon dioxide per capita. If Australia reaches its 26 per cent goal, it will still produce twice as much. Sixteen tonnes.
The comparable figures for other developed countries, according to the Climate Institute, which crunched all the numbers to allow a real, apples-to-apples comparison of carbon dioxide per capita are: New Zealand, 11 tonnes; the European Union, six tonnes; Britain, five tonnes; the United States 10 tonnes. Only Canada will be anywhere close to us, at 14 tonnes.
So, what about the other countries Abbott cited: China and South Korea?
He is right in saying that in percentage terms, our target is more ambitious. Korea’s 2030 goal is to keep its emissions broadly as they were in 2005 – that is somewhere between a 5 per cent decrease and a 1 per cent increase. China looks a whole lot worse. Its emissions are forecast to increase between 72 and 96 per cent.
But once again, as with our hypothetical overweight men, it is instructive to look at their weights at the start and end of the process. In 2005, South Korea generated about 10 tonnes of CO2 per capita. China emitted about four tonnes.
Assuming they meet their 2030 targets, they will still produce only 50 to 60 per cent as much greenhouse gas, per capita, as Australia does.
That’s still a problem for the planet, because the populations of both countries are large. But that’s not really the point.
The point is Australia is not – pardon the pun – pulling its weight.

Deceptive figures
The statistics cited by Abbott in his media conference were not actual lies, but they were deceptive. And the prime minister, his environment minister Greg Hunt, and their supporters in the press, have sought to mislead in other ways, too.
For example, when Abbott says Australia’s target is “about the same as the United States” he relies on another bit of statistical sleight of hand. The US has committed to making its emissions reductions within 10 years, whereas ours are over 15.
“If you take theirs out to 2030, it becomes 41 per cent,” says Will Steffen, a councillor with the Climate Council and emeritus professor of earth systems science at the ANU.
Then there’s the matter of base years.
“By choosing different baselines you can make it appear your effort is much greater or much less,” says Steffen.
“The Europeans choose 1990 because they started acting to reduce their emissions much earlier, and have done a lot of heavy lifting already.
“You can see how significant the choice of base year is by looking at Australia’s current bipartisan target, of reducing emissions 5 per cent on 2000 levels by 2020.
“If you translate that to a 2005 baseline it becomes 13 per cent, because emissions were higher in 2005. If you take 2010, it becomes 8 per cent. But it’s exactly the same amount of emissions.
“So we chose 2005 for our Paris target because our emissions were really high at that time, which makes our effort look greater.
“The point is that as far as the atmosphere is concerned, as far as the climate is concerned, it’s only the actual tonnage of emissions that matters.”
According to the best current climate science, if the world is to have a reasonable – 66 per cent – probability of avoiding an increase of more than 2ºC in average temperatures, we have to stay within a global emissions budget equivalent to 17,000 gigatonnes (a gigatonne is a billion tonnes) of carbon dioxide between 2000 and 2050.
To have a 75 per cent probability of staying below 2ºC warming, the global budget drops to about 15,000Gt.
That sounds like a huge amount, but it’s not, given the rate at which we are burning fossil fuels.
“We, humanity as a whole, are emitting 30 or 40 billion tonnes a year now, so you can do the sums. We’ve got about 20 years left at current rates. We’ve got to decarbonise, fast,” says Steffen.
And by the Abbott government’s policy, that will not happen.
“We are on course for a three- or four-degree rise,” he says.
That would mean no coral reefs, mass extinctions, the likelihood that Australia could not feed itself, huge global refugee flows, economic collapse.
“At that level of warming you’re talking about a vastly different world and one that humans have never experienced in our evolutionary history,” Steffen says.

International co-operation
The science is clear; the politics isn’t. How do you divide the task among the world’s countries? What allowances should be made for those countries that have only recently industrialised and are emitting a lot now, compared with those that have recently cut their emissions but emitted a lot historically? How do you weigh the needs of poor countries in Africa and Asia that are struggling to drag their people out of poverty? How do you assess capacity to pay?
There are innumerable potential points of dispute.
“Conceptually, the establishment of a formula for the apportionment of a global carbon budget sounds very neat, but practically it’s not,” says the chairman of the government’s Climate Change Authority, Bernie Fraser.
It does, however, provide a reference point for countries in setting their individual targets and justifying them to the world.
“What countries have been asked to do, when they advance their [Paris summit] targets, is show how they are making a contribution towards that commonly agreed two-degree goal,” says Erwin Jackson, deputy CEO of the Climate Institute.
“Unfortunately, some countries, such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand, have ignored it altogether and provided no justification to argue their target is a fair contribution.
“Others like the US, EU, Mexico, South Korea, Norway, Switzerland – a whole range of countries – have actually put forward an argument.”
There are no prizes for guessing why Australia has not done as asked, Jackson suggests: “The Australian government just can’t pretend its target is a fair contribution.”
So, what would be a fair contribution?
Last year – even as the Abbott government was trying unsuccessfully to abolish it – Fraser’s Climate Change Authority gave its judgement.
“The authority believes an emissions budget of 10.1Gt of CO2 2013-2050 (or about 1 per cent of the remaining estimated global budget) would represent an equitable share for Australia,” it said in its targets and progress review.
Allowing that Australia might fairly emit 1 per cent of global carbon dioxide was actually pretty generous, given we have only about 0.3 per cent of world population. To make a contribution consistent with staying below 2ºC, according to the authority, it would require a reduction in our emissions of between 45 and 65 per cent.
The lower end of that range, says Jackson, would give Australia a 66 per cent probability of not exceeding 2ºC warming, while the upper end would give a 75 per cent chance.
“We at the institute advocate a target towards the top of that range,” he says.
But it is a moot point, because the government ignored the advice from scientists and made a decision based on politics. On one hand, the polls show the public wants more action to combat climate change. On the other, the powerful fossil fuel lobby, which contributes handsomely to conservative coffers, demands protection.

Concocted reports
And the politics of this issue are very ugly. When it is not using dodgy statistics to pretend it has set an ambitious target, the government is using equally dodgy numbers to pretend that doing any more would be unaffordable.
The clearest example of this came last week, in a screaming front-page story in the Sydney Murdoch tabloid The Daily Telegraph. Almost every aspect of the story, planted by the government with its favourite partisan media outlet, was either wrong or misleading, starting with the headline: “Labor’s carbon emission plan would strip $600b from economy.”
In reality, the Labor opposition has not yet formulated its target. Nor was there anything secret about the “plan”, as The Telegraph suggested. The modelling, commissioned by the government’s statutory adviser, the Climate Change Authority, was public information. In the skilled hands of The Telegraph, it became public disinformation.
Bernie Fraser, economist, former Treasury head and Reserve Bank governor before he came to the Climate Change Authority, knows a thing or two about the use – and misuse – of economic modelling.
“The Tele report was a concoction,” he says partway through a 10-minute deconstruction of it. “Bullshit is too kind a description, really.”
Space prevents us repeating his detailed critique but should you wish, you can read a swingeing debunking of the story on the academic website The Conversation.
One of the great ironies of contemporary politics is that it was mining baron Clive Palmer who stopped the government from abolishing the Climate Change Authority, in return for his support in getting rid of the previous government’s carbon price.
As a consequence, the authority was charged with delivering three pieces of work.
The first task was to advise what Australia’s future emissions should be. That advice was ignored.
The second, due in December, is to examine the policy options for reducing our emissions. It will recommend an emissions trading scheme, or as Abbott, Hunt and the climate change deniers derisively call it, a carbon tax.
“You can’t get away from a price on carbon,” Fraser says.
The third report, due by the middle of next year, will consider a comprehensive suite of other measures for energy efficiency.
“We’re working on it, despite the dismal atmospherics,” Fraser says in his mild, uninflected voice.
He’s anticipating a lot more “crap” from the Abbott government and parts of the media when those reports come down. All of which means the debate about climate change is going to get a lot hotter in the near future.
Just like Earth itself.

Are Countries Legally Required To Protect Citizens From Climate Change?

GreenBiz

On June 24, a court in The Hague ordered the Dutch government to act faster in its duty to protect its citizens against the effects of climate change. This marks the first time the issue legally has been declared a state obligation, regardless of arguments that the solution to the global climate problem does not depend on one country’s efforts alone.
The decision was based on various branches of law, including, most important, human rights. In effect, it makes the Dutch government accountable for greenhouse gas emissions on its own territory, an outcome other countries also may need to heed.
The government, the court said, must ensure that Dutch emissions in 2020 will be at least 25 percent lower than those in 1990 — the amount the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report stated is needed from industrialized countries if the world is to not exceed 2 degrees Celsius warming and avoid the worst consequences of climate change. Dutch political leaders had been planning to cut emissions by up to 17 percent within the next five years.
“Our case lets politicians know that they can’t let climate change happen. They have a duty to act, be it legally or morally,” said Dennis van Berkel, legal counsel to the Urgenda Foundation, which, supported by about 900 co-plaintiffs, initiated the suit.
The Dutch, whose country lies largely below sea level, have reason to worry about climate change. But they live in a country that has resources to adapt.
People in poorer countries, who have contributed least to climate change and are also often least well prepared to respond, are likely to suffer the most. It’s for them that the Dutch victory is critical, said van Berkel.
“The rights of our co-plaintiffs are central, but people outside of the Netherlands will be even harder hit by climate change,” he said. “The ruling will encourage others to appeal to human rights when it comes to climate change threats.”
Which brings up the big question: Is the Dutch court ruling a landmark for the entire globe?

From human rights to policies
In 2008, the International Council on Human Rights Policy in Geneva, Switzerland, wrote in a report about climate change and human rights (PDF): “As a matter of law, the human rights of individuals must be viewed in terms of state obligations.”
But the world long has been grappling with international agreements for such obligations; from the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to repeated Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change — COP — meetings, the best efforts have struggled to gain traction, in large part because political actions have not kept pace with promises made.
Aware of that gap, citizens have tried to litigate political leaders into action, but before the Urgenda (a portmanteau of “urgent agenda”) case there were no victories.
In 2005, for example, the Inuit Circumpolar Council filed a petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, based in Washington, D.C., claiming that global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions from the United States violated the Inuit people’s right to sustain their traditional ways of life due to destruction of the Arctic environment. The commission dismissed the complaint due to lack of sufficient evidence.
“The obligations are clear,” said Wim Voermans, a professor of constitutional law at Leiden University in the Netherlands. “But when they aren’t kept, can citizens then make a claim that it’s a country’s non-acting that’s endangering them? That’s the challenge. … It’s hard to prove direct causalities in civil litigation.”
In 2008, the village of Kivalina, Alaska, sued several large energy companies, claiming that global warming had diminished sea ice formation, forcing the village to relocate. The case was dismissed based on judicial determination that decisions about permissible levels of greenhouse gas emissions should be made by the executive and legislative branches, not by the courts.
“The real problem is, who has what power?” said Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University Law School. “Whose job is it to set climate policy? Basically, all judges have said, not me. Before the Urgenda case, no court had really taken on this role.”
Courts haven’t been entirely averse to taking responsibility, though. In 2006–2007, Massachusetts sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which had refused to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the federal Clean Air Act of 1970. The agency claimed that any attempt to regulate greenhouse gases might impede potential White House strategies.
The Supreme Court disagreed. While it was an important outcome, “the court did not set policy,” Gerrard explained. “It was just saying, it is EPA’s job.”
Meanwhile, in different countries courts have varying views about how broadly they can act. In environmental policy, courts have at times chosen to intervene on behalf of the public. In 2001, for example, the Supreme Court of India decreed that all Delhi buses had to convert from diesel (PDF) to natural gas, which has had a profound effect on air quality. It was an important ruling, but it didn’t get into climate change.
Amid this impasse between governments avoiding responsibility and courts preferring not to interfere, academics and attorneys worldwide as well as some members of the judiciary have felt a growing unease. A group of them eventually came together to determine whether climate change is an actual issue under existing law, specifically international law, human rights law, national environmental law and, to a lesser extent, tort law. The answer is yes.
“There are longstanding principles of human rights and protection of environment that are threatened by climate change,” Gerrard said. “Our view is that the law should have the ability to address this great threat.”
The group’s discussions, which took several years, led to the launch of the Oslo Principles on Global Climate Change Obligations on March 1. Drawing on existing law and the IPCC’s 2 C threshold finding and prepared by expert members from national and international courts, universities and organizations in every region of the world, the principles seek to define the scope of legal obligations relevant to climate change.
“We are currently educating judges around the world of the existence of the principles,” said Gerrard, a co-author of the principles. “Our hope is that judges in various countries will use the framework of the principles and that they are cited by the courts.”
The Urgenda case began before the principles were established, and was inspired by the book “Revolution Justified” by Roger Cox, one of the lawyers representing Urgenda, which looks at how courts can play a role in solving energy issues. But as the suit progressed it relied in part on the Oslo Principles, bringing together various branches of law and IPCC science.
According to Gerrard, the Urgenda ruling was “the first decision by any court in the world ordering states to limit greenhouse gas emissions for reasons other than statutory mandates.”

Building momentum
Meanwhile, new scientific findings keep pouring forth. The journal Nature reported in February that carbon emissions from thawing permafrost will accelerate climate change, information not accounted for in current IPCC reports. With each such finding, the goal to not exceed an increase of 2 C becomes more difficult.
“Our findings add one more pressure for action,” said Kevin Schaefer, a scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado, who contributed to the Nature paper. “There is a sense of urgency. The carbon feedback is an irreversible process, a true tipping point.”
But a lack of scientific evidence hasn’t been the stumbling block for climate action in the decades since scientists have identified the issue.
The Urgenda ruling could offer a different way forward because it sets a legal precedent, saying that concrete reductions cannot wait. While the ruling is not binding for any other country, it sets an example and, as such, is a landmark for the world.
“We hope that there is enough momentum built that many countries feel an obligation,” Gerrard said.

A pathway to commitment
This offers a new piece to the puzzle as countries move toward convening in Paris for COP 21 in November — a piece they likely will have to deal with before then as lawyers are emboldened to bring similar cases around the globe.
“No one expects that commitments made in COP 21 will be sufficient to avoid dangerous climate change,” van Berkel said. “But after COP 21 it is going to be critical that countries remain committed to what is needed. Juridical procedures similar to our case are going to be instrumental in this.”
No events have been scheduled yet in Paris to discuss the Oslo Principles, but Urgenda has been organizing a march from Utrecht to Paris starting Nov. 1 to draw further attention to action needed to fight climate change.
A citizen suit similar to Urgenda’s is underway in Belgium, and another is expected soon in Norway. Urgenda’s decision may be appealed, and future cases may be successful or not.
Either way, they each will play a role in changing the zeitgeist toward a feeling that climate change and human rights are inextricable, said Bill McKibben, founder of the climate campaign 350.org, which, among other actions, has led the campaign for universities and other entities to divest from fossil fuels.
“They’ll drive home, constantly, the message from Desmond Tutu: Climate change is the human rights crisis of our time,” McKibben said.

It May Be Winter In Australia, But July Was The Hottest Month Ever Recorded On Earth

New Matilda

Depending where you live, July might have seemed like a chillier month than normal in Australia. It saw strong snowfalls in Victoria and NSW, even in the Blue Mountains west of Sydney, and as far north as Queensland.
According to the Bureau of Meterology, temperatures for the southeast mainland were cooler than average. But the weather in NSW and Victoria – and parts of south east Queensland – were the exception to the rule.
Nationally, maximum temperatures were almost half a degree warmer than average in Australia, and rainfall was down nationally about 35 per cent.
That’s inline with the explosive news released by the USA’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration earlier today – the world just experienced the hottest month since they started keeping records 136-years ago.
The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for July 2015 was 16.6 degrees celsius– that’s almost a full degree (0.81) above the 20th century average, and slightly higher than the previous record set in July 1998.

More broadly, scientists predict that it is “very likely” 2015 will knock off 2014 as the hottest year ever recorded on earth.
Professor Will Steffen from the Climate Council noted that 9 out of the 10 hottest months recorded since records began in 1880 have occurred since 2005.
“The scientific basis for urgent action to tackle climate change has never been stronger,” Professor Steffen said.
“The escalating risks associated with a rapidly warming climate underscore that Australia’s emission reduction targets are not enough. Australia must make its fair contribution to the worldwide effort to bring climate change under control, and protect Australians from worsening extreme weather events.”
Professor Steffen noted that the formation of a “powerful El Nino that could break records increases the likelihood of another angry Australian summer”.

Two Degrees Or Four? It's A Personal Choice For Survival In The Near Future

Sydney Morning Herald - Elizabeth Farrelly

Four degrees. It doesn't sound like a lot. Four degrees is the difference between a spring day and early summer, right? It's almost nothing.
Wrong. Four degrees, as an earth-surface average, is the difference between a full-on ice age like the one at the end of the Pleistocene and now.
It's also the difference between now and a future where the northern half of Australia is over 40°C half the year, and 80 per cent of Australia – including Adelaide, Perth and most cropping land across three states – has over 40 days over 40 degrees a year. (In 1990 this was less than 10 per cent).
You know what 40°C feels like. At 40 you start to feel you're being cooked. Imagine a week of it monthly, from September to March. Imagine what that will mean for food supply. Water. Schools. Disease.
Four degrees is huge. Four degrees is runaway climate change, all the tipping points. It's business as usual - but not for long.
Because chances are it won't get to four degrees. As someone noted at the IPCC scientists' panel organised by 350.org Australia in Sydney last week, it won't hit four degrees warming because once it hits three, the economic cataclysm will be so intense that productivity will plummet, taking greenhouse gas production with it. (Then again, carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for a century, so maybe, maybe not.)
I went to hear the IPCC guys with a certain dread. Part of me wants not to hear. My inner primate wants to hide in a cupboard labelled Normal Life.
Complacency is so tempting. Look around. Everything's pretty much OK , yeah? It's spring. We go to school and work and dinner. Change might come but not for us, not now, not here.
We think climate change is mostly about poor people in distant countries. And up to a point that's true. We cause it, they suffer it.
But make no mistake. We will still suffer. The coastal houses of the rich will be suddenly worthless. There'll be no more Barrier Reef holidays. By mid-century, current trajectory, the great reefs will be dead grey stumps. No more kilos of prawns for the barbie. As oceans warm and acidify beyond most species' tolerance, seafood will become an expensive rarity and oysters almost unheard of. In fact, the barbie will become a dangerous pastime, as Sydney mozzies start to carry dengue and Ross River fever, and beetles carrying chagas disease - a terrible unvaccinatable disease dubbed the Aids of the Americas - also start to spread. And that's before the homeless hordes decide that Australia looks big and empty.
Sea-level rise alone means land loss, salination of soils and potable water (including, in some cases, aquifers) and massively increased flooding. The IPCC's expected rise of 0.6 - 1.0m by 2100 puts a salt-lake in Marrickville by 2100 and, globally, implies an annual flooding of 200-300 million people from their homes. That's some tide.
In 35 years, some 1500 of Indonesia's islands will be under water. By 2100, 42 million Indonesians living within 3km of the sea may be homeless. Jakarta airport will drown. What does it mean for Australia? Suffice it to say, "stop the boats" won't be an option.
So sure, it's scary. But you can't fix it by looking away. Climate change is not like God. You can't just decide you don't believe in it and that's it, sorted.
The evidence is in. We have not just a second and third opinion. We have 2500 scientific opinions, expert across a dozen disciplines, in agreement – not to mention the Smithsonian, every world university, the Pope, the Queen and the Church of England (which in June passed the Lambeth Declaration calling for urgent action on climate change) all in furious agreement.
This is not some bunch of hippies or communist nut jobs. This is an extraordinary colloquy of sober and conservative voices acknowledging that, sadly, climate change is real, anthropogenic and already, in part, irreversible. Yet we can still choose to survive. Or not.
Four degrees is one of three "stabilisation" scenarios in the IPCC's latest, 1450-page report. Two degrees is the preferred option. It defines as a 66 per cent or higher probability of maintaining the global surface temperature increase to less than 2° C above pre-industrial levels. It's a lot less than perfect but, given that the carbon to get us there is already 65 per cent emitted, it's probably the best we can hope for.
So the questions become: what must we do to cap it at two? When? And who gets to emit the remaining 35 per cent of the carbon?
The only fair answer to the last bit is the poor countries, which must drag billions from poverty. This makes our answer to the other two questions, everything and now.
Under 2° means a 70 per cent reduction of 2010 greenhouse levels by 2050 and zero or negative emissions by 2100. Which is why Tony Abbott's 26-28 per cent by 2030 looks derisory, even compared with the developed nations' average of 36 per cent.
Simply, we have to become fossil free. No more oil. No more gas. And not just no new coalmines. No coal, period.
This requires an immediate and universal switch to renewables, evs, organic farming, intensive reforestation, efficiencies, walking and cycling. Not just for the believers. For everyone.
Like the French, we should require all new roofs to be planted or solar. Like the Germans, we must pledge 85 per cent reduction on 1990 levels by 2050.
This conjures improbable fantasy of an honest, principled and backboned Australian political leadership. Imagine the panic that would cause among the policy-rorters and trough-guzzlers.
But on the comfort side is Cuba which, in 1990, with Russia's connivance, became the no-oil test case. Everyone expected disaster but found, when forced to walk, work and cycle more, to mend and invent, to produce bio-fuel and farm organically, they lived healthier, longer lives and formed stronger, more energised communities.
Two degrees or four? It's our choice but it'll be more successful and way more fun, if we jump before we're pushed.

Islamic Leaders Call For Rapid Phase Out Of Fossil Fuels

The Guardian

Islamic leaders have issued a clarion call to 1.6bn Muslims around the world to work towards phasing out greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and a 100% renewable energy strategy.
The grand mufti’s of Lebanon and Uganda endorsed the Islamic declaration on climate change, along with prominent Islamic scholars and teachers from 20 countries, at a symposium in Istanbul.
Their collective statement makes several detailed political demands likely to increase pressure on Gulf states ahead of the Paris climate summit in December.
“We particularly call on the well-off nations and oil-producing states to lead the way in phasing out their greenhouse gas emissions as early as possible and no later than the middle of the century,” it says.
Clear emissions reductions targets and monitoring systems should be agreed in Paris, the statement says, along with “generous financial and technical support” for poorer countries to help wean them off fossil fuels.
So far, Morocco is the only Middle Eastern country to present an emissions-cutting climate pledge ahead of the summit. But Hakima el-Haite, the country’s environment minister said that the declaration could help to change mindsets and behaviours around climate change in some Gulf states.
“It is an emotive call for a spiritual fight against climate change that will be very important for Muslims,” she told the Guardian. “It speaks to issues of fairness, accountability, differentiation and adaptation in the Paris agreement. I think that the right way to make this sort of call is through the Qur’an.”
El-Haite predicted that Saudi Arabia and other oil-producing countries would sign up to a climate agreement in Paris but said that international support would first be needed to address the “financial gap” involved in transiting from fossil fuels to renewables-based economies.
The Istanbul declaration was made by Islamic figures from Bosnia to Indonesia and follows a ground-breaking Papal encyclical last month. Heads of state, corporations, and all peoples are addressed in the Istanbul call, which carries a universal and startlingly bleak message.
“We are in danger of ending life as we know it on our planet,” the statement says. “This current rate of climate change cannot be sustained, and the earth’s fine equilibrium (mīzān) may soon be lost.”
“What will future generations say of us, who leave them a degraded planet as our legacy?” the religious leaders ask. “How will we face our Lord and Creator?”
Din Syamsuddin, the chairman of the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) which represents 210 million Muslims welcomed the statement, saying: “we are committed to to implementing all [its] recommendations. The climate crisis needs to be tackled through collaborative efforts.”
The MUI has already issued one environmental fatwa against rogue mining operations and Syamsuddin reportedly consulted with Indonesia’s environment minister Siti Nurbaya Bakar over the weekend, before attending the symposium.
Unlike the Catholic church, Islam is a decentralised religion with no unitary authority, and the final statement addressed a range of secular concerns with calls for divestment, a circular economy, and tempered growth rates.
“To chase after unlimited economic growth in a planet that is finite and already overloaded is not viable. Growth must be pursued wisely and in moderation,” one passage reads.
Another calls for corporations and the business sector to “shoulder the consequences of their profit-making activities and to take a visibly more active role in reducing their carbon footprint and other forms of impact upon the natural environment”.
The United Nations’ climate chief, Christiana Figueres said that overall, the declaration showed how a clean energy future rested on a shift in the value attached to the world’s environment and people. “Islam’s teachings, which emphasize the duty of humans as stewards of the Earth and the teacher’s role as an appointed guide, illuminate pathways to take the right action on climate change,” she said.
The declaration on climate change was also welcomed by Cardinal Peter Turkson, the president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, “with great joy, and in a spirit of solidarity”. Turkson pledged that the Catholic Church would work with the declaration’s authors to protect their common earthly home.
Organisers say that one religious scholar from Saudi Arabia was among the 60 participants at the meeting but that none of the invited Shia leaders attended.

LINK
Islamic declaration on climate change

Australia’s Weak Climate Pledge Draws Instant Derision

Inside Climate News

 Australia has submitted a modest emissions-reduction pledge to the United Nations negotiating body on climate change.  It was met by a disparaging chorus of critics who said it did not shoulder a fair load in the world’s struggle to keep global warming within safe limits.
Australia, a leading producer of coal with an unusually high per-capita output of carbon dioxide, has been viewed as a laggard in the climate fight for decades, especially since its government reversed course and abandoned a tax on carbon last year.
It now says it will reduce emissions 26 to 28 percent below the levels of 2005 by 2030, a rate of reduction that is less than promised by most leading industrial nations.
Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who led the charge to end the carbon tax, sought to defend what was widely derided as a half-hearted effort. He was quoted by the Guardian as saying,  "It’s better than Japan. It’s almost the same as New Zealand. It’s a whisker below Canada. It’s a little below Europe. It’s about the same as the United States. It’s vastly better than Korea. Of course, it is unimaginably better than China."
But climate experts, noting that each nation ought to be striving to meet ambitious targets given their own particular circumstances, said Australia owes the world much more.
The Climate Council, an Australian policy group, said in a detailed fact sheet that Australia’s goals "simply don’t represent a fair contribution to the world effort to bring climate change under control."
Australia would also be cutting back more slowly than most. Europe’s cuts are much deeper, and U.S. emissions would drop much more quickly, according to their pledges. Australia’s goals are even weaker than Canada’s, another straggler.
"Other countries will have to pick up Australia’s slack to tackle climate change -- including many developing countries with fewer resources," said David Waskow, international climate director with the World Resources Institute.
Tony de Brum, foreign minister of the Marshall Islands, put it even more bluntly in a scathing statement.
"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."
Some Australian newspaper pundits were nearly as harsh.
The goal "looks like it has been based largely on what the government thinks is the minimum it can get away with in the international community and among the Australian public," wrote Tom Arup, environment editor of The Age. "But it falls short on three key measures: the science, the pace of international action and what can technically be achieved."
Laura Tingle, political editor of the Financial Review, chimed in: "As the Abbott Government seemingly unravels before our eyes, the Prime Minister has released a climate policy which must be the dodgiest bit of public policy in years."
Writing on ABC’s The Drum blog, University of Melbourne economist Warwick Smith explored another common criticism of the Abbott policy: by choosing approaches other than a price on carbon to attack climate change, the government is wasting money and falling short of its emissions targets. He cited evidence that the nation could be achieving much more ambitious goals at little additional economic cost – although the deeper the cuts, the harder its coal industry would be hurt.
"It is clear that this low commitment is purely about protecting Tony Abbott's beloved coal industry at everyone else's expense," he wrote. "The sad news for Tony Abbott is that no matter what he does, the coal industry is living on borrowed time."

Australia’s 2030 Emissions Target: Preliminary Analysis and International Comparisons

Frank Jotzo, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University
12 August 2015

Summary
Australia's proposed emissions target is a 26% to 28% reduction in national emissions compared to 2005 levels. This initial analysis provides a comparison with the post-2020 targets of the United States, EU, Canada and Japan. It translates targets into several metrics, including per capita emissions and emissions intensity of the economy.

• Australia's 2030 target falls far short of what would be a commensurate Australian contribution to the internationally agreed 2 degree goal. Most other developed countries' targets also fall short, but generally by less than Australia's target.
• In contrast to most other major developed countries, Australia currently has no credible plan announced of how the target could be achieved.
  • To achieve reductions in domestic emissions will require significant and sustained policy effort. For reductions to be achieved cost-effectively, a consistent, broad-based policy effort is needed. Investors need to regain trust.
  • The target announcement opens the door for stronger action domestically, and will force a renewed debate about policy instruments.
• Internationally, the target is likely to be perceived as falling short in its ambition relative to Australia's opportunities to cut emissions. But it does not fall catastrophically short, and is not an active obstruction of the international process.
• Australia's target is relatively weak in comparison with other developed countries, across a number of dimensions. But it is not out of the ballpark of the pledges other major developed countries have made.
  • A full analysis would include modelling of the economic effects of Australia's emissions target including a detailed representation of different ways of meeting it, in comparison to other countries' targets.
  • However such modelling is not available, and in practice assessments of adequacy of countries' targets are rarely based on modeled economic costs.
• Australia's target for absolute emissions is weaker than the United States' and the EU's, slightly weaker than Canada's and slightly stronger than Japan's.
  • However, the annual rate of emissions reductions to meet the target steps up during the 2020s, to 1.9% per year (for a 28% reduction). This is slightly higher than the comparator countries, except the US which are targeting a reduction of 2.8% per year during the first half of the 2020s.
• In per capita terms, Australia's target implies a halving of per capita emissions over a 25-year timespan, a similar reduction rate as expected in the US and Canada, and a much faster reduction than in the EU and Japan where populations are stable.
  • Emissions levels per capita however are the highest among all major countries. Per capita emissions would remain higher than the main comparator countries at 2030 under the targets, assuming population growth continues at the rates observed over the last decade.
• The emissions intensity of Australia's economy (ratio of emissions to GDP) is also the highest among the comparator countries and - given assumptions about future GDP growth - is expected to remain highest alongside Canada.
  • The targeted rate of reduction in emissions intensity reductions through the 2020s however is rapid at over 4% reduction per year, on par with annual targeted reductions in the United States and China.

The target relative to the 2 degree goal
Australia's national interest is in strong global climate change mitigation. As spelt out in the issues paper by the government's UNFCCC task force, "a strong and effective global agreement, that addresses carbon leakage and delivers environmental benefit, is in Australia's national interest." The context is the goal to limit global temperature increase to two degrees, a goal supported by the world community and re-iterated by the Australian government.
The adequacy of national targets in the global context of strong climate action can be judged in many different dimensions. There is strong justification for deriving it from principles. A principled approach can consist of defining a global carbon budget, then apportioning Australia's share of the global carbon budget on the basis of considerations such as equity and capacity, and defining a trajectory of emissions through time that is in line with the budget.
This approach was taken by the Climate Change Authority, in its Targets and Progress Review (2014), which had Australia's emissions levels reduced by 40 to 60% at 2030 (relative to 2000). The modelling done for Australia's Deep Decarbonisation Pathways study (ClimateWorks and ANU 2014), with an emissions budget over time compatible with the Authority's analysis, showed a halving in Australia's emissions at 2030 compared to 2005.
In this light the announced target clearly falls short of a commensurate contribution to the global effort under a 2 degree scenario.
Most other developed countries' targets also fall short, yet generally by less than Australia's target.¹

Policy frameworks for achieving a reduction target
The target announcement raises the question how a reduction target could be achieved.
Most analyses suggest that significant policy action will be needed to achieve reductions in absolute reductions in Australia, in the face of an underlying growth trend.
The present policy framework is not geared to deliver on the target. The Renewable Energy Target has been slashed, and the Emissions Reductions Fund (ERF) in its present form will only have a marginal effect, at a big cost to the taxpayer. It is far-fetched for the ERF subsidy mechanism to achieve significant absolute emissions reductions, and there have not been any announcements about new policies.
Broad-based, consistent policy approaches such as emissions trading can achieve emissions reductions at least cost. Composite policy approaches that do not have carbon pricing at their core can also deliver outcomes, but at higher cost.
The costs of achieving emissions cuts and ultimately decarbonisation are likely to be lower than thought. It has been a frequent experience that low carbon technologies become better and cheaper fast than expected, and economic change is not as painful as feared. By contrast, perpetuating investments in fossil fuel assets such as new coal mines risks locking into industrial structures that will turn out to be obsolete in a world that acts strongly on climate change.

International expectations and perceptions
If Australia is to avoid being an obstacle the international climate change action, the post-2020 target needs to be a meaningful contribution to the global effort, underpinned by a credible blueprint for how to achieve emissions reductions in Australia.
International expectations of Australia's actions will take into account that Australia is among the richest countries in the world and the highest per capita emitter among the major countries. It is also well understood that Australia has better opportunities to cut emissions than many other countries, because Australia's energy system still relies heavily on coal, there are large and relatively low-cost opportunities for renewable energy, and energy efficiency is often still low.
In addition, Australia has a particularly strong interest in strong global climate change action, because of the continent's exposure to climate change impacts and the vulnerability of countries in the region.
These considerations argue for a relatively strong target for Australia. Despite expectations having been lowered through the recent political discourse in Australia about climate change policy, the benchmark is high for other countries accepting Australia's pledge as an adequate one.
That said, the target is likely to put Australia at the table in the international climate negotiations leading into the Paris conference. It will likely be seen as a relatively weak commitment, however it is also likely not to be seen as an active obstruction of progress in the climate negotiations.

Quantitative comparisons with other countries' targets
The closest international comparison for Australia's emissions target among developed countries are the United States and Canada. All three are high-emitting countries, have
relatively high population growth rates and tend to have relatively high GDP growth rates.
All three rely heavily on fossil fuels for their energy systems, and Australia and Canada have comparatively high levels of emissions intensity (ratio of emissions to GDP).
The EU and Japan by contrast have much lower emissions levels per person and per unit of GDP, which in turn means lesser opportunities to reduce emissions.

 Indicators at 2012

See below for data sources.

Absolute emissions
Australia's target in direct comparison is significantly weaker than that of the United States (if extrapolating the US target to 2030) and the EU, slightly weaker than Canada's, and slightly stronger than Japan's.²
The 2005 base year is particularly favourable for Australia, because it was the high water mark in Australia's greenhouse gas emissions.³ Comparison of future targets to this high 2005 level yield relatively higher percentage reductions. Conversely, the targeted reduction at 2030 is a lesser reduction when compared to either 2012 or 2000 levels (a 19% reduction in either case).
The targeted annual rate in Australia's emissions reductions steps up to 1.9% per year during the 2020s compared to the historical average of 1.2% per year from 2005 to 2014 (same number for 2005 to 2012).
By contrast the required annual rate of reduction to meet the currently endorsed 5% reduction target at 2020 (compared to 2000 levels; this is equivalent to a 13% reduction compared to 2005 levels) is well below 1% per year.
By comparison, the US are targeting an annual reduction of 2.8% per year during the first half of the 2020s. However, Australia's targeted annual reduction through the 2020s is higher than that of Canada, the EU and Japan.

Targeted absolute emissions at 2030, relative to different base years

US target extrapolated from upper range of 2025 target (28% reduction at 2025 relative to 2005)
by assuming same annual rate of reduction targeted from 2020 to 2025. Historical emissions data
from WRI CAIT (see below), except for Australia where government provided data is used.

Targeted annual change in absolute emissions

US targeted rate from 2020-2025.

Per capita emissions
A striking feature of Australia's target is that because of relatively high population growth, the targeted annual percentage reduction in per capita emissions is the largest among the comparator countries, together with the United States. Assuming population growth continues at average rates observed during 2000 to 2012, the target would result in a halving of per capita emissions levels from 2005 to 2030.
However, Australia has the highest per capita emissions among the major countries, and would continue to have the highest per capita emissions at 2030, under the targets.
Australia's per capita emissions are now more than double those in the EU and Japan's and would be around double those countries' in 2030 still.
A significant share of these comparatively high per capita emissions is due to emissions intensive activities for export, including mining, minerals and metals processing and agriculture. However, process improvements and the decline in Australia's competitiveness in some traditional energy intensive manufacturing industries will make it possible to reduce emissions also from export-oriented activities.

Per capita emissions levels, actual and implicit in targets

Assumptions about population growth: future annual growth rates same as from 2000-2012.
US 2030 value assumed continued reduction at 2020-25 annual rate.

Annual changes in per capita emissions, actual and implicit in targets

Assumptions about population growth: future annual growth
rates same as from 2000-2012. US targeted rate 2020-2025.

Per capita emissions levels, actual and implicit in targets

Assumptions about population growth: future annual growth rates same as from 2000-2012.
US 2030 value assumed continued reduction at 2020-25 annual rate.

Emissions intensity
A similar picture as for per capita emissions emerges for the comparison of emissions intensity, the ratio of emissions to GDP.
The emissions intensity of Australia's economy is the highest among the comparator countries, on the basis of purchasing power parity adjusted GDP. Given assumptions about future GDP growth, it is expected to remain highest alongside Canada's.
The targeted rate of reduction in emissions intensity reductions through the 2020s however is rapid at over 4% reduction per year, on par with annual targeted reductions in the United States. This targeted rate is also closely similar to China's. China has pledged a 60 to 65% reduction in emissions intensity from 2005 to 2030, equating to 3.6% to 4.1% per year.

Emissions intensity levels, actual and implicit in targets

Assumptions about GDP growth: see below.
US 2030 value assumed continued emissions reduction at 2020-25 annual rate.

Annual changes in emissions intensity, actual and implicit in targets

Assumptions about GDP growth: see below.
US 2030 value assumed continued emissions reduction at 2020-25 annual rate.

Data and assumptions
Emissions data:
World Resources Institute CAIT database of Annex I emissions for all countries except Australia. Australia: Australian Government 2015, 'Australia's emissions projections 2014-15', Department of Environment.
Population data and assumptions:
Historical data from IEA Carbon Dioxide Indicators database.
Assumption: annual population growth rates post-2012 equal to average annual growth rates during 2000-2012.
GDP data and assumptions:
Analysis uses purchasing-power parity adjusted GDP in US$.
Historical data from IEA Carbon Dioxide Indicators database.
Assumptions: annual GDP growth rates from 2012-20 according to IMF World Economic Outlook (April 2015); annual GDP growth rates from 2020 onwards according to IEA World Energy Outlook assumptions, except Australia and Canada where a 2.5%pa growth rate is assumed.

Frank Jotzo
Associate Professor | Deputy Director, Crawford School of Public Policy | Director, Centre for Climate Economics and Policy | Australian National University
frank.jotzo@anu.edu.au
Views in this document represent are the author's, not the institution's.
--------
¹Relevant analyses can for example be found at Carbontracker.org.
²For the purpose of this analysis, the upper end of the target ranges is assumed for Australia and the United States (a 28% reduction target at 2030 and 2025 respectively, relative to 2005).
³Australia's total national emissions are reported by Australia's government as 608.7 MtCO2-equivalent in the financial year 2004-05 (taken here as 2005), compared to 558.8 Mt in 1999-2000, 559.4 Mt in 2011-12 and 547.7 Mt in 2013-14. The peak was at 614.1 Mt in 2005-06.
Source: Australian Government 2015, 'Australia's emissions projections 2014-15', Department of Environment.