NewScientist (15 August 2015, paywall) notes complaints that Australia is backing off its climate change commitments:
Prime minister Tony Abbott said on Tuesday that Australia would aim to cut emissions by 26 to 28 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. This is much less than is recommended by the country’s Climate Change Authority.
“This is a responsible and achievable target,” Abbott said. “It is comparable to the targets of other developed countries and allows our economy and jobs to grow strongly.”
But using the same baseline year of 2005, the US aims to cut emissions by 41 per cent by 2030 and the UK by 48 per cent.
The Climate Institute takes note:
“The initial target offer ahead of the Paris climate negotiations in December is a core test of the government’s climate and economic credibility,” said John Connor, CEO of The Climate Institute. “This target fails tests both of scientific credibility and economic responsibility in a world increasingly focused on modernising and cleaning up energy as well as economic systems.”
“This target is bad for the climate and bad for our international competitiveness.” …
“If other countries took the same approach as the government announced today, the world would warm by 3-4°C.”
“The government’s weak target is also bad for the economy. As many other nations continue to step up actions to limit emissions and modernise their economies through clean energy and other investments, this target implies that Australia will be the most pollution intensive developed economy by 2030.”
“This target also means we would still be the highest per capita polluter among developed economies in 2030.”
A lovely bit of public shaming, that. The official Australian Dept of the Environment page is here. Earlier in the year, the Department of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet released this report:
Australia’s climate will continue to have high variability. Nevertheless, a verage temperature s are projected to continue to increase and extreme rain events are projected to become more intense. A verage rain fall in southern Australia is projected to decrease.
Australia is taking strong action on climate change. Between 1990 and 2014 the economy nearly doubled in size and our population grew strongly, while greenhouse gas emissions remained broadly the same. Australia’s emissions per capita have reduced by 28 per cent since 1990 and by 20 per cent since 2000 and emissions per unit of gross domestic product have fallen by 52 per cent since 1990 and by 35 per cent since 2000.
The Australian Government is committed to achieving a five per cent reduction on 2000 emissions levels by 2020. This target is equivalent to a reduction of 13 per cent below 2005 emissions levels and a 19 per cent reduction from projected business as usual emissions.
Strong action? Not everyone agrees.
Climate Action Tracker has a current evaluation of Australia, including a really nice chart, which is not embeddable. The same page also includes a summation of the world by country, divided into categories. The USA is rated at the bottom end of Sufficient (to my surprise); Australia is at the top end of Inadequate. Only one country, Bhutan, is listed as above Sufficient; and certainly not all the countries of the world are listed.
Peter Hartcher of the Syndey Morning Herald has a cynical view of the Australian government:
If the carbon emissions target that the federal government is about to announce is connected to climate science, it’s by coincidence. …
… this government doesn’t make its big decisions based on science, economics, markets, or any value other than politics. So let’s set aside the pretence that this is really about climate change.
As we know, Tony Abbott once described himself as a “weather vane” on climate change; the winds that blow him about are political.
Otherwise why would he classify coal as good and wind farms as bad? Do rocks and wind turbines have moral qualities?
This is not about an open minded examination of energy markets. Like all of this government’s big decisions, it’s about ideology and politics.
If you want to understand the frenetic claim and counter-claim you’re going to hear on this subject, you’ll find this simple, two-point guide indispensable. The political rubric is:
1. If the argument is decided mainly on climate or environment considerations, Labor wins.
2. If it’s decided mainly on electricity prices, the Coalition wins.
[etc…]
The Prime Minister is of the Coalition, of course. A quick look at his history certainly seems to show he’s a political creature, through and through, which is hardly what you want to see in government if you see a non-political problem needing resolution by the government. While he’s made gestures towards science, one must wonder about his sincerity.
It does occur to me that, if we do manage to achieve the goal of < 2° C rise in temperature, and thus nothing too horrible happens, then we’ll be faced with the cries of the deniers that, indeed, nothing has been proven and they were right all along.
