What’s in a number? New carbon target sparks new climate warfare
Our free Environment newsletter is sent every second Wednesday. Below is an excerpt. Sign up to get the whole newsletter delivered to your inbox.
Casual observers of federal parliament might this week have been startled by a sudden resumption of conflict over climate, but the timing was no accident.
Australia, like the rest of the world, is due to set its 2035 carbon-emission reduction target under the Paris Agreement. As a result, Canberra is crawling with those who have an interest in influencing that target (or Nationally Determined Contribution, more on which shortly).
Setting the scene for many turning their attention to parliament as it resumed for the Albanese government’s second term, were Nationals MPs Barnaby Joyce and Michael McCormack, who introduced a private members’ bill to have Australia abandon entirely the effort to cut emissions in line with the Paris Agreement.
Nationals MPs Barnaby Joyce and Michael McCormack introduced a bill to have Australia scrap efforts to cut emissions in line with the Paris Agreement.Credit: Monique Westermann
Also in Canberra this week was Simon Stiell, the UN’s chief climate diplomat or, more properly, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. He has been travelling the world urging nations to submit ambitious targets that will keep Paris Agreement goals within reach.
Far too careful a diplomat to recommend an Australian target, he has been making the case that, on economic and security grounds, Australia should be ambitious.
“Bog standard is beneath you … Go for what will build lasting wealth and national security,” he said in a speech in Sydney before travelling to Canberra. “Go for what will change the game and stand the test of time.”
So, what’s a Nationally Determined Contribution?
When world governments signed the Paris Accord almost a decade ago they agreed that to halt climate change before catastrophic tipping points kicked in, warming needed to be arrested below 2 degrees and as close as possible to 1.5 degrees.
They also agreed that to achieve this the world had to reach net zero emissions by 2050, which in turn would be impossible without each nation hitting interim reduction targets, such as in 2030 and 2035.
Then the geopolitics kicked in.
Why should smaller or developing nations be compelled to cut their emissions as much as the richer countries or the larger ones that were causing so much more warming? And why should developing nations not be allowed the chance to build their wealth with carbon just as the rich nations already had? They’ve got a point.
To get around this, the signatories agreed to the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities”.
In practical terms, this means that under the treaty, nations set their own emissions targets as their fair contribution to the global effort.
Those targets are set acknowledging each nation’s capacities and historical contributions, and are known as Nationally Determined Contributions, or NDCs.
How will our goal be set?
In short, the Climate Change Authority, headed by former NSW treasurer and climate and energy minister Matt Kean, will make a recommendation to Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen, who in turn will make a case to cabinet.
The CCA is consulting across the economy and with community and industry groups to understand climate impacts and the capacity of various sectors to reduce emissions. It will provide its recommendation in the coming weeks.
Both the CCA and Bowen have declared they want the target to be both ambitious and achievable. Kean sometimes throws in the word “responsible” too, quietly emphasising that the target must be in keeping with global expectations.
Last year, the CCA issued a discussion paper suggesting that reducing emissions by between 65 and 75 per cent would fit those criteria.
Who’s saying what?
Australia’s peak scientific body now believes that even a 75 per cent cut by 2035 will be too little too late. Because global efforts to cut emissions have not been fast enough over the past decade, we must cut harder and faster by 2035 to keep the Paris goals of stabilising below 2 degrees alive, according to the Australian Academy of Science.
The Climate Council is also calling for the full net zero by 2035, as are the Greens.
After her meetings in Canberra this week, Climate Council chief executive Amanda McKenzie noted that Queensland, NSW and Victoria had already backed targets falling between 70 and 80 per cent.
Pushed on the matter during a press conference on Tuesday, Liberal Leader Sussan Ley ducked the issue, emphasising the need to cut energy bills.
Teal MP Zali Steggall said last night that she accepted the scientific advice that net zero by 2035 might be necessary, but also noted the political and practical reality that such a goal might be out of reach.
She is calling for a target of “at least” 75 per cent, and believes that view is shared by her crossbench colleagues.
Labor MPs are waiting for the Climate Change Authority’s advice.
And so what about the Nationals drift towards the abandonment of any target at all?
Stegall finds the position preposterous. “They [the Nationals] want to put their hand out when climate disasters strike, but they don’t want to do anything to mitigate the risk.”
The only certainty is that the climate wars are not yet over.
Get a fortnightly note directly from our national environment and climate editor about what’s making headlines on this critical topic. Sign up here.