Australia ranked third-last in climate change performance of 58 countries

Extract from The Guardian

2016 Climate Change Performance Index released at Paris climate summit, day after Julie Bishop said Australia was meeting and beating its climate targets

Australia’s score is actually slightly better than last year, but not enough to shift it very far up the rankings. Photograph: Christophe Petit Tesson/EPA

Lenore Taylor in Paris

@lenoretaylor

Tuesday 8 December 2015 20.30 AEDT

Australia has come third last in an annual assessment of 58 nations’ climate policies, with only Saudi Arabia and Kazakhstan ranking worse.
The assessment by Germanwatch and Climate Action Network Europe was released at the Paris climate summit, just one day after foreign minister Julie Bishop told the assembled ministers Australia was meeting and beating its climate targets and transforming its energy production.
The report measures actual emission levels per capita, the trend in emissions projections, the deployment of renewable energy, and the energy intensity of the economy, and assesses climate policies for each of the 58 countries.
Australia’s score is slightly better than last year, but not enough to shift it very far up the rankings.

The Australian Conservation Foundation acted as one of the “expert advisers” for the review, and its chief executive, Kelly O’Shannassy, said the study showed up the difference between what Australia was saying at the Paris conference and what it was doing.
“This report cuts through the government’s spin to show that we are a climate laggard,” she said.
Denmark topped the ranking, while the UK, Sweden, Belgium and France all scored well. Japan and Korea ranked only slightly higher than Australia.

Australia’s high per capita emissions means it scores very badly in the first category of the assessment – measuring emissions levels. It scores better, although not well, in a second category assessing projected future emissions across a number of sectors. It also scores poorly on renewable energy deployment, where other countries are moving faster, and on both national and international climate policy.

The expert comments would have contributed to the negative assessment. A selection are printed in the report, including:

• The current policy framework is evaluated as inadequate to meet Australia’s minimum 2020 target of 5% below 2000 level.

• Through legislative amendments in June 2015, Australia’s renewable energy target (RET) was scaled down from 41,000 GWh to 33,000 GWh. The definition of renewable energy was also altered to include burning of biomass from native forests. Experts criticise that this move would restrict uptake of real renewable energy, drive deforestation, cause carbon emissions and reduce sequestration.

• Experts criticise that policies like the Emission Reduction Fund are weak, poorly designed and do not cover major emitters. The “safeguard mechanism” sets baselines for industrial emitters but in its currently proposed form does not capture many of the nation’s largest emitters and does not seek to reduce emissions.

The report was finalised before the recent change of prime minister and does not appear to reflect what many negotiators believe is a more positive attitude by Australia in Paris.
It says Australia’s record at global climate talks in recent years has been “poor” and that Australia tried to “relegate climate change off the agenda” in the leadup to the G20 meeting in Brisbane.
“Experts criticise that Australia’s attitude appeared to be to try to avoid making any substantive commitments, and to do the absolute minimum that it has to. There appeared to be no recognition of Australia’s national interest in minimising climate change; rather, the focus seems to be on protecting domestic energy and resource exporters (coal and gas industry),” it says.
The UK moved up the rankings, from six to five, because it has continued to expand renewable energy and set a deadline for phasing out coal-fired power.
Indonesia also moved up, despite rampant illegal deforestation, because it has low per capita emissions and – according to the report – “improvements can be seen in the renewable and the efficiency scores”.