They recommend this as
part of a transition away from carbon based energy into renewable energy, in
which we would cut our emissions by 19 per cent by 2020, 30 percent by 2025,
and 40 to 60 per cent by 2030, compared with year 2000 levels.
This is highly
consistent with the two per cent per annum cut I have been advocating since
before 2010, which would have given us a 20 per cent reduction by 2020, a 30
per cent reduction by 2025, 40 per cent reduction by 2030, 80 per cent cut by
2050, and complete decarbonisation by 2060. The 80 per cent cut by 2050 is
consistent with Labor's National Platform of 2011.
The Climate Change
Authority recommendations deserve support on a number of grounds.
First, extreme weather
events are already impacting on Australia and if the world does not move to
renewable energy we have a lot to lose. We have more skin in the game than
most.
Second, the Climate
Change Authority, chaired by Bernie Fraser, was created by the Australian
Government to provide independent advice on greenhouse gas targets, and brings
together a strong understanding of the best science, the international context,
and the economic impacts.
Third, we cannot expect
to be taken seriously by the rest of the world unless our own actions reflect
serious intent. Europe has committed to a 50 per cent reduction on 1990 levels
by 2030. The United States has committed to 26-28 per cent reductions on 2005
levels by 2025. China has committed to peaking emissions in 2030.
Fourth, Australia is a
major emitter. We are the thirteenth highest emitter in the world in absolute
emissions, and the highest in per capita terms. It is not true that our actions
don't matter.
Fifth, we can do this
without economic damage. Our renewable energy industry is perfectly capable of
meeting electricity demand over time provided Governments don't sabotage it.
Last week Australia's largest greenhouse gas emitter, AGL Energy, committed to
closing all its coal-fired power stations by 2050 and not building any new
ones, thereby completely decarbonising its energy generation by 2050.
Australia should adopt the Climate Change Authority targets, and take them to the global climate summit in Paris later this year. The question is how do we want to be remembered by future generations – as greedy, selfish and short-sighted, or as visionary, intelligent and compassionate?
Hi Kelvin,
ReplyDeleteIf anything, the Climate Change Authority is perhaps a tad conservative with their targets. Scientific recommended targets for Industrialised nations were adopted as part of a footnote in the 2007 Bali negotiations which said that industrialised countries like Australia should cut emissions by 25 to 40 per cent on 1990 levels by 2020. The CCA falls short of this, especially as they use a 2000 baseline.
John Connor from the Climate Institute says "We should be targeting at least 40 per cent reductions by 2025, and 60 per cent by 2030, if we want to help build global efforts that give a strong chance of avoiding 2°C"
http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/articles/media-releases/climate-change-authority-opens-door-to-more-credible-carbon-pollution-reductions.html
I don't think the Climate Change Authority target is enough as our fair share of reducing global emissions to stay under 2 degrees C of warming. But it would be a healthy start and a positive contribution if adopted by Australia for the Paris negotiations.
However the current government don't appear to have a mechanism in place to even reach the Climate Change Authority targets, in fact may struggle to meet the present grossly unambituous 5 per cent target under the Direct Action policy of the Emissions Reduction Fund.
I appreciate your commitment in pushing higher targets in the Labor Party and your strong support for climate action over many years and a strong Renewable Energy Target. Thank you for all that you do.
Agreed! Not taking such targets to the Paris summit will seriously harm our credibility on the world stage.
ReplyDeleteOur economy based on "growth" only ticks with population growth! How can we really, and logically mitigate anthropogenic climate change under such as model? We could make a transition to renewable energy targets, but is there any evidence that these can be scaled up to meet our rate of population growth? They are still in their infancy. The first thing we should do is make the transition to a sustainable and stable economic model, than address the renewable energy targets.
ReplyDeleteOur economy based on "growth" only ticks with population growth! How can we really, and logically mitigate anthropogenic climate change under such as model? We could make a transition to renewable energy targets, but is there any evidence that these can be scaled up to meet our rate of population growth? They are still in their infancy. The first thing we should do is make the transition to a sustainable and stable economic model, than address the renewable energy targets.
ReplyDelete