Extract from ABC News
World leaders are gathering in New York to talk climate change, accepting an invitation from the United Nations for a "no-nonsense" summit aimed at sharpening the globe's efforts to counter global warming.
Key points:
- The Albanese government enshrined its net zero 2050 policy into law last year
- Foreign Minister Penny Wong is attending the summit
- Some experts argue Australia should aim to be net zero by 2035
But some experts are warning Australia's ambitions need to be scaled up dramatically — to help lead the world into a much faster slashing of emissions than what it currently planned.
Australia is taking its net zero by 2050 policy to the UN Climate Ambition Summit, which the Albanese government enshrined in law last year.
Foreign Minister Penny Wong is attending, a move criticised by the Greens, who argue the prime minister should be attending.
UN secretary-general Antonio Guterres has called on countries at the summit to bring "credible, serious and new climate action and nature-based solutions that will move the needle forward", arguing the goal of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius is "gasping for breath".
Some experts are now arguing Australia's ambition should be increased and accelerated dramatically — from net zero by 2050, to net zero by 2035.
Among them is the Australian Academy of Technical Sciences and Engineering (ATSE), made up of 900 scientists and engineers, who argue net zero by 2035 is "technically feasible" if the resources and policies required are put in place.
Even then, ATSE president Katherine Woodthorpe said it will be an extraordinary challenge to meet.
"It is absolutely feasible, but at huge effort," she said.
"But by the same token, if you don't focus on a huge effort it is easy to drift into complacency. And we won't even make the 2050 targets."
The group acknowledges Australia's current policies, aiming for net zero by 2050 and a 43 per cent reduction by 2030, broadly aligns with the commitments of other nations.
But it argues Australia should go further, pointing out that the country is the 14th largest emitter globally, with a disproportionate impact on the global climate.
Ms Woodthorpe said it is increasingly clear that 2050 won't be soon enough.
"2050 seemed acceptable — I mean, to scientists it still seemed a long way out — but even since those declarations were made, the evidence continues to mount that it's just not enough," she said.
"We just need to be more assertive, more aggressive in achieving those targets earlier, it's just critical."
What does net zero by 2035 look like?
Achieving net zero by 2050 will already require a remarkable economic shift — with a complete reworking of the energy grid, the transport sector, the resources industry and many other parts of the economy.
Doing so by 2035 would require all of that to happen in just over a decade, rather than the two and a half decades currently planned.
The Climate Council is also advocating for net zero by 2035, arguing the bulk of the change required to reduce emissions can't be put off for decades ahead.
The Council's 4esearch director Simon Bradshaw said a net zero economy will require a total transformation.
"We will have ended the reckless expansion of new fossil fuels, and shifted entirely to a 100 per cent renewable energy powered electricity system," he said.
"We will have also been building the clean, prosperous industries of the future — green steel, exporting clean energy, the export of various materials and components needed to support the world's decarbonisation efforts.
"This is the biggest economic opportunity we've ever faced."
Substantial changes to the power grid are seen as a big part of the equation, away from centralised generators near capital cities to decentralised generation — requiring power to be moved constantly around the country.
Electric cars would dominate personal transport, with alternative fuels needed for heavy vehicles.
Mr Bradshaw acknowledges there will be enormous challenges for those whose livelihoods are directly impacted by the transition away from carbon-intensive industries.
"It really does start with listening to communities about what they're going through and what they need," he said.
"But fundamentally, the sooner we get on the path of a clean future economy and bringing our emissions down, the sooner we're unlocking those opportunities for communities around the country, on their terms."
What about coal and gas? And nuclear?
Both the ATSE and Climate Council argue the opening of significant new coal and gas projects makes little environmental or economic sense.
The Minerals Council and other groups have argued all fuels, including coal and gas, have a role in reaching Australia's net zero targets.
Ms Woodthorpe said economics alone will largely end the expansion of the coal industry much further.
"The reality is that not only are we reducing our dependence on coal, but really importantly, so are our [overseas] markets," she said.
"To increase our coal supply to both ourselves and others at the moment seems economically and practically a mistake, as well as environmentally."
She said the role for gas as a transition fuel, and in providing peaking power supply, is clear — but the need for significant new gas projects is not.
"We have more than enough gas that we're pumping out of the ground at the moment to see us through the transition, we really don't need more," she said.
The federal opposition has called for a renewed considering of nuclear energy as an alternative zero-carbon power source, including the option of a "coal to nuclear" transition.
It suggests small, modular reactors could help take on the base load supply role played by coal, even taking the sites currently occupied by coal generators.
Some countries are pursuing small modular reactors as part of their transition, and some commercial reactors are in development.
Ms Woodthorpe said it simply is not feasible for Australia in the time frame required.
"If you're talking small modular reactors, there's none commercially available yet, we don't know when they'll be commercially available, and we don't know at what cost," she said.
"So to plan for implementing technologies that are developed outside Australia, that we have no input to, and we don't know when they'll be available or how much they'll cost just doesn't tick the boxes on practicality and economics."
No comments:
Post a Comment