Extract from ABC News
By national science, technology and environment reporter Michael Slezak and political reporter Melissa Clarke
This week has seen the UK, the US and others pile onto Australia's approach to climate change at a virtual conference on climate action.
The US President's deputy special envoy for climate change, Jonathan Pershing, told the Better Futures Forum on Thursday our current emissions reduction commitments were not enough.
"It would be really helpful to see Australia step forward with a more ambitious effort," Mr Pershing said. "I would submit that Australia could be much more aggressive."
Later in the day, the UK's Minister of State, Alok Sharma, who is president of the upcoming climate conference in Glasgow, called on Australia to do more.
"I urge Australia to step up with big, bold commitments ahead of COP26 in November," he said.
At the same conference earlier this week, former UN chief Ban Ki-moon said not taking more action risked Australia's international standing, and NSW Liberal environment minister Matt Kean said Australian climate politics needed to move beyond vested interests.
Australia is copping it from all sides. Why now?
Ahead of COP26 in Glasgow, the world wants tougher targets
In just over 70 days, the world is meeting in Glasgow for COP26, as the next round of UN climate talks are known.
At the meeting, countries are expected to announce new and more ambitious emissions reduction targets.
As Mr Pershing explained, the UK is leading the pack, with a pledge to cut emissions by 68 per cent by 2030. The EU has pledged a 55 per cent reduction and the US 52 per cent.
The world needs to cut emissions roughly in half by 2030, and rich countries such as Australia are expected to lead the way.
But Australia has stuck with the same commitment it made in 2015 under Tony Abbott: 26-28 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030.
At the same time, all our major trading partners have committed to a net zero target, but Australia has so far resisted.
Ban Ki-moon put it bluntly: "Australia's current goal of a 26 to 28 per cent reduction on 2005 levels by 2030, and the absence of a national zero emissions target, is out of step with its states, its trading partners, and other comparable nations. It is insufficient to meet Australia's Paris Agreement commitments."
There are other things Australia can do, too
Many expect Australia will announce a net zero by 2050 target ahead of Glasgow.
But without stronger interim targets for 2030, that is unlikely to satisfy our global friends and neighbours.
COP26 will involve important discussions that go beyond emissions pledges, which could offer room for Australia to generate goodwill.
How money will be mobilised to help the developing world mitigate and adapt to climate change is going to be an important discussion.
There was a target of mobilising $US100 billion ($139.5 billion) of global finance by 2020. How that's measured is a matter of some debate, but most agree the target has not been met.
Australia has a chequered history on the issue.
Under the Abbott government, Australia supported the Green Climate Fund, which seeks to raise finance to assist the developing world.
Australia even chaired it.
When Scott Morrison became Prime Minister, following Donald Trump's lead, he withdrew Australia from the fund, telling talkback radio he would not "tip money into that big climate fund".
Australia did stand by its commitment to provide climate finance, just through other channels.
Despite that, the move was condemned by some of our Pacific neighbours, and now the US has rejoined the fund, Australia is the only developed country not part of it.
Australia could probably win some goodwill by playing a constructive role in discussions around finance.
There are other options. Mr Pershing suggested Australia could help reduce its impact on emissions in other countries too by reducing its coal exports. And important negotiations will take place around adaptation targets and carbon markets as well.
What about Australia's 'technology, not taxes' approach?
Mr Morrison has been ardent in his promotion of "technology, not taxes" as a way of tackling climate change.
This is a reference to the Coalition's Technology Investment Roadmap, which guides $18 billion into five priority areas: hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, soil carbon, energy storage options and "low-carbon" steel and aluminium production.
The initiative does have international support, acknowledging technological breakthroughs in these areas could help both developed and developing countries alike lower their emissions in the future.
But it doesn't cut it as an emissions reduction target.
There is no guarantee these technological breakthroughs will happen at all, let alone quickly and successfully enough to make them competitive with existing methods of electricity generation and manufacturing in the next decade.
The US, UK and others want Australia to commit to targets and time frames. That way, if the technological breakthroughs don't happen, Australia will be compelled to find other ways to reduce emissions.
How does Labor's policy stack up?
With a federal election due sooner rather than later, it is possible the ALP, rather than the Coalition, could be dealing with climate change policy.
Labor leader Anthony Albanese has already committed to the net zero by 2050 target and Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy Chris Bowen has now acknowledged stronger interim targets are needed as well.
"Net zero emissions by 2050 is necessary, but not sufficient," he told the Better Futures Forum.
But he declined to outline what that would involve, beyond the vague statement: "Australia should take a higher medium-term target to COP26 in November."
Labor's centrepiece energy policy is the $20 billion Rewire the Nation plan, which would see direct investment in the energy transmission network.
That investment is needed to accommodate the growth in wind, solar and hydro-power generation scattered around the countryside, not to mention the growth in rooftop solar feeding into what used to be a one-way grid.
But, like the Coalition's Technology Investment Roadmap, it doesn't hold Australia to account to meet its share of emissions reduction in a feasible time frame to limit global warming.
So how will this play out?
In the next 70 days, we can expect to see the US, UK and other developed countries ratchet up the pressure on Australia.
Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction Angus Taylor is standing firm on the government's approach for now.
"While ambition is important, outcomes are what ultimately matter," he said.
"Over the last two years, our position against our 2030 target has improved by more than 639 million tonnes. That is equivalent to taking all of Australia’s 14.7 million cars off the road for 15 years."
"Australia will continue to act in a practical, responsible way to be part of the global solution to reduce emissions without destroying jobs or regional communities."
The US and UK are currently coaxing and cajoling Australia, but expect more muscle flexing if Australia doesn't show that it is willing to come on board with stronger action.
The EU is forging ahead with a "Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism", a bureaucratic name for a tariff on goods that are produced in nations that don't meet emissions reduction benchmarks.
Mr Biden has indicated the US intends to follow suit with a similar trade policy.
If Mr Morrison does not do enough to convince the world Australia is serious about contributing to global emissions cuts, as Ban Ki-moon warned, the nation's reputation and its trading strength could be badly damaged.
No comments:
Post a Comment