News & Views item

News & Views item - December 2008

Australia to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Between 5 - 15% Below 2000 levels by the End of 2020. (December 15, 2008)

The federal government's white paper on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme which outlines an emissions trading scheme for Australia was released today.

The Government has committed to a medium-term national target to reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions by between 5 per cent and 15 per cent below 2000 levels by the end 2020 (equivalent of 4-14% below 1990 levels). Its long-term target will be a 60 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 2000 levels by 2050.

Below are five views collected by the The Australian Science Media Centre (AusSMC).

Dr Frank Jotzo
is a climate change economist at the Australian National University. He is a deputy director of the ANU Climate Change Institute, and was advisor to the Garnaut Climate Change Review.
__________

"A reduction around 10% for Australia is consistent with a global deal of medium ambition, and it will start the transition to a lower-carbon economy. But ruling out a 25% reduction is a mistake, since Australia's overwhelming interest is strong global climate action . An international agreement with deep cuts has just become a little bit more unlikely, as a result of Australia not putting a compatible offer on the table.

Comparing emissions on a per capita basis is justified, and any given cut is greater in per capita terms for Australia than for Europe. But we cannot forget the other half of the equation: Australia's per capita emissions levels are double that of Europe, and four times the world average. That means Australia's fair share is to cut faster than others, in per capita terms."

Professor Barry Brook
is the Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change and Director of the Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability at the University of Adelaide.
_________

"I suppose most sensible people will be happy with the upper-end emissions reduction targets outlined today by the Australian Government in the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) white paper - a 14% reduction by 2020 compared to 1990 levels, which equates to a per capita drop of 41%. These are ambitious and deeply challenging goals, and equal to or better than the per capita targets proposed by other developed nations such as the EU, UK and US. Australia's 2050 target of 60% is unmoved from past policy, but it is the short-term targets that matter right now.

To achieve these sort of cuts, there will need to be nothing short of a revolution in the way we generate and conserve energy - sharply turning around, in a mere 12 years, decades of rampant growth in carbon emissions and energy supply from fossil fuel industries. Whether the CPRS plan is sufficiently revolutionary and robust to realise this goal, even in combination with the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target (MRET), is a matter that will be debated thoroughly over the next year.

But of course there is a rather large elephant in the room that every political decision makers is still pretending isn't there. It's an African bull elephant that's already breaking chairs in the sitting room and is about to burst into the dining area and start smashing all the crockery with increasing rage. That's the scientific reality of the physics, chemistry and biology of climate change and climate feedbacks, a process which cares nothing for these bold ambitions or how hard we might be trying. The laws of nature cannot be bargained away and they do not compromise. So we either muster a rouseabout team, lasso the elephant, and drag it from the house, or we attempt to placate it, in the vain expectation that we may be able to rescue a few pieces of our finest porcelain. Our only hope is to do the former, but it seems we're resigned to accept that only the latter is possible.

Put more directly, the 14% cut in our total emissions by 2020 announced today is such a pitifully inadequate attempt to stop dangerous climate change that we may as well wave the white flag now. That's because such a goal - even if fully achieved (and it will take some mighty effort) - will still commit to global temperature rises of 3 or more degrees Celsius, setting in motion a slew of climate feedbacks that take the planet to a state unfit for humanity for all future generations, and for most species. The science tells us we need at least 40% by 2020, 90% by 2030 and zero emissions as soon as possible thereafter; with the real aim of restoring CO2 levels to what they were in the early 1950s. The CPRS targets will not achieve 450 ppm CO2, as the government hopes, and even 450 ppm has a little chance of avoiding 2C warming, will not restore the polar ice, and will not stop sea level rise.

It's going to take a truly revolutionary set of policies and strong political will to rapidly wean ourselves off carbon-based energy. Yet from both a fossil-fuel supply (peak oil, gas and coal) and a climate perspective, this is exactly what must be done. Even to achieve the cuts announced by the government today, we must implement radical improvements in our energy efficiency and develop a whole new infrastructure of energy supply. So one has to ask the obvious question - why not commit to going 'all the way' and actually solve the crisis before it has time to happen, rather than merely half-solve it, such that the best we can do is delay the inevitable crunch?"

Dr. Barrie Pittock
was formerly leader of the Climate Impact Group in CSIRO and is author of the book "Climate Change: Turning Up the Heat". He was a Lead Author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) forth assessment report.
__________

"The scientific evidence is that for a safer global and Australian climate, we must reduce global emissions by at least 20% by 2020, and 60-80% by 2050 or so. That means 2-3% reductions each year from now.

There are two reasons for an Australian target;

i. To do our part in reducing global emissions, bearing mind that we emit more per head of population than almost any other country.

ii. More importantly, to show we are serious so as to be able to pressure other countries (including the US - but they will do as well or better than us next year) to act also. Developing countries may well not act if we do not.

Any targets will need carrots and sticks to get them going. Targets without action are no use, and action without targets fails to impress developing countries.

It will be easier than many think. Renewable energy and energy efficiency are not expensive, and are a better investment than high carbon technology. Coal, oil and power companies will only have themselves to blame if they make poor investments in more coal and oil, rather than good investments in renewables -- just like the car
companies. They were warned by scientists in the 1980s but failed to act. Now they are paying the price. This time investors, and governments, need to get it right. Low-carbon technologies are the future. It is the new industrial revolution, and those who do not recognise it will be left behind. The world is changing and industry and consumers must change with it.

Australia has more renewable energy potential than almost any other country, especially solar energy, geothermal energy, wind and tidal power. It is time we cashed in on this opportunity. It could provide jobs, security and lots of energy."

Professor David Kemp is Professor of Farming Systems at the Centre for Rural Sustainability, Charles Sturt University and University of Sydney, NSW. David is currently in Beijing, China.
__________

"I do think that the policy is a clear reflection of poor policies over the past 40 years or so that this issue has been developing. Australia keeps deferring the options of creating new and sustainable energy dependent industries. Where I am in China it is fascinating to see the vast numbers of local solar water heaters - when Australia had a clear lead in those developments decades ago. Low targets signal that the Government is not that interested in having Australia lead in developing solutions but that we are merely to follow behind - a policy that will mean as late adopters, that we remain at a disadvantage relative to those who take a more proactive stance. The countries that set more aggressive targets are more likely to come up with the better solutions and have the market advantages.

I have been looking at scenarios for how grazing industries might adjust to climate change. The big issue is that with reduced rainfall, high temperatures and increased variability in those climate parameters, it is likely that Australia will have fewer livestock. If that is done in ways that improve efficiency then methane will drop (a good), but without lowering costs (from new technologies that need to be developed, as current technologies rely on the current carbon economy) farm incomes will suffer, exports decline and Australia's competitive position in major commodities could also decline. What this means for world food security is uncertain."

Dr Matthew Clarke is Director of International and Community Development at the School of International and Political Studies, Deakin University in Victoria. He is also the author of a book on "Post Kyoto: Designing the Next International Climate Change Protocol", which will be published later this year.
__________

"By setting a range of targets, the Australian Government has implicitly recognised that effective measures to minimise climate change can only be global in nature. Unilateral action from Australia will not be sufficient. The Australian Government must therefore commit itself to ensuring that the next international climate change protocol to be decided at Copenhagen in 2009 delivers deep carbon emission reduction. If the global community fails at Copenhagen, we will have failed our own children.

The Australian Government is also right to focus on reducing our per capita emissions. Allocation of future emission rights on a per capita basis is the only equitable manner in which the global community can allocate rights to emit. So whilst on this basis the proposed targets are in line with targets announced by the EU and UK, they are still not sufficient. If CO2 emissions are to stabilise at 450 ppm per emission by 2050, Australia will have to reduce its per capita emission by around 90%. Australia must signal its willingness to both developed and developing country to achieve this reduction."