We could secure a spectacular future for ourselves and help the planet. Instead the federal government dodges the hard decisions; passes the buck. Fortunately, state and territory governments are stepping up to the plate.
New analysis shows that Australia needs to cut emissions by at least 50% by 2030 to meet goals of the Paris agreement. A report by a new group calling itself the Climate Targets Panel has found the Morrison government should be setting a 2030 emissions reduction target of between 50% and 74% if Australia is to comply with goals of limiting global heating to 2C and 1.5C respectively.
That higher cuts will be needed were foreseen long ago. According to the United Nations Environment Program Report of 2019:
“Had serious climate action begun in 2010, the cuts required per year to meet the projected emissions levels for 2°C and 1.5°C would only have been 0.7 per cent and 3.3 per cent per year on average. However, since this did not happen, the required cuts in emissions are now 2.7 per cent per year from 2020 for the 2°C goal and 7.6 per cent per year on average for the 1.5°C goal. Evidently, greater cuts will be required the longer that action is delayed.”
It’s obvious. The longer we delay the more severe the action we will need to take to keep the planet healthy and habitable. The more severe it is, the more discomforting for people, and the more fearful the politicians will be for their jobs, rather than for the future of the country whose people employ them to do the right thing.
In Australia, we watch while politicians, and others with a megaphone, argue the toss about whether climate change is real, or just a naturally occurring event about which we can do nothing. The science is clear – we are the major influence causing the climate to change because of how a majority of us live our lives.
Meanwhile, politicians exercising their free-speech-without-responsibility” peddle information deliberately designed to mislead. For what purpose? To let them dodge the hard decisions that would avoid what John Hewson has described as the greatest example of inter-generational theft. That is, passing on the costs to future generations so that the present generation(s) can enjoy the benefits from not having to change much.
We talk endlessly about the cost of doing something but rarely about the cost of doing nothing. Yes, it’s hard; but too important to ignore.
Our hypocrisy is on show when we say we are ‘only’ responsible for about 1.4% of global CO2 emissions so what we do will make no difference. Yet we are only about 1% of global GDP (purchasing power parity) and we often tell the rest of the world how to trade and what trading rules they should obey because, we say, it is in our legitimate national interest. So is what they do about climate.
In the meantime we bake through hot summers. We watch a tinder dry country go up in flames at huge cost. We see long-term rainfall patterns change. We see agriculture affected and we watch our natural beauty (and fauna) devastated. And still we talk.
The government’s mantra is technology not taxes: populist drivel designed to avoid having to argue substance. It makes you wonder whether they are capable of an argument of substance. Instead, they emphasise some hoped-for technology improvement so they can continue to back coal.
Carbon capture and storage has long been a favourite because, if it were to work, nothing would have to change; no industry or behaviour change. Just capture the CO2 and pump it underground – with the expectation that it won’t leak. Of course it would have to be on a scale that we’ve not yet achieved in Australia. And as for leakage? A Canadian plant found that about 30% of the captured CO2 leaked into the atmosphere. International experience suggests this technology is still a big if.
We should demand leadership – demand an end to this demeaning political wrangling at federal level. Demand that our politicians take on challenges, even daunting ones, to secure the future of the country, not just their own jobs at the next election.
It is also clearly in our interest for the world to change how it generates and uses energy and what it does with it, not just change how it trades. We could be a catalyst for real change instead of the brake that we and a handful of other countries were in Madrid, 2019, where Australia fought hard to keep old carbon credits rather than taking actions that might affect consumers. Publicly dodging the hard decisions; passing the buck; she’ll be right.
The federal government expects to somehow get to ‘net zero carbon’ sometime this century, hoping that it is earlier rather than later. It has committed to a “technology road map”: akin to sitting in your car with a map open but knowing only that you want to head somewhere north. Lack of certainty, underwhelming commitment, political games don’t mix well with existential threat.
If our nation’s leaders won’t do it, others must – and State and Territory governments have all stepped up. Their leaders have committed to net zero emissions by 2050. While commitments are only as good as the policies that underpin them, now that we know the destination we can find the path. A sensible discussion about the ‘net’ in net-zero emissions, and debate about the mix of policies to get there, is the key; we should end this focus on the ‘zero’. Focus instead on the ‘net.’
Zali Steggall (MP for Warringah) has introduced a bill reportedly supported by about 100 businesses and organisations. It provides for a 2050 net zero target and would require the government to set a rolling emissions budget to meet it. It’s a destination and a means to monitor progress. Notwithstanding the widespread support from business (although with questions about details), the government apparently doesn’t like it so it might not even get debated in our “representative democracy”. This bill is the subject of a parliamentary inquiry.
The government may be able to sideline the efforts of an independent backbencher in the short-term, but it won’t want to indefinitely ignore the weight of public opinion, and certainly not the demands of business.
According to a Lowy Institute poll in 2019, 61% (of Australians) said global warming is a serious and pressing problem. We should begin taking steps now even if this involves significant costs.
A government that dog whistles about ‘keeping electricity bills low’ should listen. A majority is saying that most of us would rather live on a sustainable planet and pay a little more (if we have to) to turn on the lights – maybe with compensation for those who legitimately can’t afford to pay more.
While about 75% of young people (the ones with the long future) want change, less than 50% of people over 45 were enthusiastic. Wisdom doesn’t necessarily accrue with age; or is the selfishness gene showing its age?
As in so many things – same-sex marriage for another – business is again way ahead of (the federal) government on tackling climate change. Companies are committing to change – from green buildings to insurance, to manufacturing to generation of renewable energy, and financial services. Those who would give anything to do nothing are on a different planet.
There is hope.
We could secure a spectacular future for ourselves and help the planet. It seems enough of us want to and are willing to work for it. But we need leadership by politicians who are determined, strategic and capable.
Imagine that!
Ian William Chubb AC FAA is an Australian neuroscientist and academic, who was the Chief Scientist of Australia from 23 May 2011 to 22 January 2016.
Comments
19 responses to “Coalition’s political games don’t mix well with existential threat”
Unfortunately greenhouse emission targets quoted by Ian are now superseded. Prof David Karoly advised (at my forum round table The Future We Must Plan for on 4 Dec 2020) that we need to reduce them by 125% by 2030 to limit global warming to 1.5 PLUS implement significant restoration targets to the biosphere. This is critical not only to cater for growing global population but also to moderate global temperature increases. Bottom line is this will require major system and behavoural change – relying on technology to fix this will not work – if anything on its own it will make matters worse.
Prof Will Steffen also advised at this forum that these global changes have also created the potential for a number of tipping points to create a cascade in which they become mutually reinforcing. Once this occurs no amount of economic cost-benefit analysis will save us.
Prof Johan Rockstrom has described this as a global challenge equivalent to another Apollo project that humanity will need to get its act together within a small number of years and make the transition this decade – otherwise we are headed for collapse and ultimately extinction.
Roger Taylor
Chair Transport for Melbourne
Hello Ian: good to see scientist speaking up on public issues. Have you seen the article “Zero Attribution: Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology keeps silent on Climate Science” in Michael West? It seems that meteorologists are also coming to know Sin. Who then can really cast the first stone at Robert Oppenheimer?
Thanks for your thoughts Ian. I have just listened to an interview with Keith Wollahan, the freshly minted Liberal candidate for Menzies, who reprised word-perfect the weasel word arguments you have so succinctly demolished; “only” 1.4% of global GHG emissions, technology not taxes and so forth. It is hard not to despair when we see such shallowness in what is touted as the “young, moderate new guard” of the Liberal party. Perhaps he should be sent a copy of your article to start his (re)education on the question of climate change? He did claim that he wants to serve Australians…
The frame work standing in our way is an economic one!
Neoliberal capitalism a particularly savage, cruel, and exploitative regime of oppression in which not only are the social contract, civil liberties and the commons under siege, but also the very notion of the political, if not the planet itself.
The neoliberal subject has normalized market-driven ideologies with little to no respect for the vessel that sustains us!
Neoliberalism a form of self-sabotage and if it does not come to an end what we will experience in all probability a destruction of human life and the planet itself. It is devoid of any sense of social responsibility and is driven by an unchecked desire to accumulate capital at all costs.
Really these are consequences of moving from industrial economy to a financialized one and government policy reflects that in their day to day governance!
Without strong government leadership to confront the looming catastrophe, we are finished. What we do as individuals and communities is of course important; but we need government-mandated emissions reduction, drawdown and mitigation.
I work in a hospital. Every day we move more to single-use: tourniquets, metal instruments, gowns, you name it; mountains of plastic. All incinerated or into landfill. But I can have no impact on my area unless the hospital is on board; the hospital won’t get onboard without direction from the Health Dept; and the Health Dept will only do what our elected government directs it to do.
It is up to us all to do all we can to get the governments we need.
Have to veer to Glikson on this one. Whatever Garnaut says, science implies the UN bauble of “net zero” can’t secure us a “spectacular future”. Our 230-year environmental blitzkrieg proceeds on many fronts, not just emissions. Koalas say, all fronts must be addressed, including (don’t tell UN) over-population.
Thank you Ian. Without wishing to put words into your mouth, what you have described here is a cabal of national traitors. I also wonder about that 61% who say climate change is a serious problem. Do all of them really mean it, or are they just saying what they feel should be said. Labor presented good policies at the last election and got burned. Had 61% of the electorate voted Labor we would not be now in the hands of conservative plunderers, thieves.
I agree with you on the 61%.
Superbly said Ian. This piece should be obligatory reading for every political in the nation
Unfortunately, due to amplifying feed-backs from land and oceans, a reduction in emissions, which is essential, is no longer sufficient to arrest global warming. This is due to (1) the melting of ice sheets which opens water surfaces thus reducing surface reflection; (2) warming of the oceans which reduces CO2 absorption; (3) methane release from permafrost and sediments; (4) drying and burning vegetation which releases CO2 to the atmosphere, and other factors. Unless effective measures are undertaken to sequester atmospheric greenhouse gases global warming can not be arrested.
While we are rightfully harping on a federal government not doing what is necessary to protect Australia and its citizen in the long term, we should be equally harsh with the Labor Party. While they finally have a target for 2050 (zero CO2 emissions) they are still sitting on the fence regarding intermediate targets. Why on earth wait for some international commission to set target? Don’t they have any idea themselves, or more likely, the guts to say something definitive? It completely baffles me. Are they so worried about their seat in parliament that they are too paralysed to come out in public?
This issue is so critical that the fact that 61% of Australians think something is really neither here nor there. We simply cannot risk to wait.
Sounds desperate? Well, it is.
By 2050, at the current rate of carbon emissions of 2 to 3 ppm CO2, atmospheric level would reach over 500 ppm. When methane and nitrous oxide are taken into account, average global temperatures would reach above 2 degrees Celsius, too late to try and reverse.
Exactly, and it is not like we have not known this for years, as well as significant methane release as the world warms up.
Yet in this country and many others, absolutely nothing is planned to deal with the future that we are creating. We should be moving towards internationalism to solve these problems, but nationalism and less international cooperation is the focus in this country.
Coronavirus has slowed emissions to some extent, and that should serve to demonstrate to us how much our current economic structure and dependence on certain industries has to change, especially dependence on wasteful consumerism and transport, but will we learn anything here?
For much of the media, a 2 degree temperature rise just means another fun day at the beach.
The time will come when the criminality of denial and inaction on global heating will become universally understood.
Tragically this may be too late.
Agreed. I wax between hope and reality with this, but the science tells us now that the major seeds for catastrophe are already sowed, just as an out of control locomotive rolling down the track will eventually hit anything in its way.
We should have been planning and preparing for this many years ago, any more prolonging will just make things worse.
I saw Professor Will Steffen on ABC last night, he even predicts Australia that currently exports 2/3rds of its annual agricultural production may very well have to import food. (I wonder where we would even get it from and it would trigger even more use of fossil fuels to get it here).
When they say 2 degrees increase in temperature as you would know, it does not mean that many localised regions will not rise to far higher temperatures, and that is what we observed last Summer and many others before that.
The use of average land/sea global temperatures is misleading since different regions are heating at different rates, for example the Siberian Arctic has been warming in 2020 by +5 degrees higher than the long-term average. The effects of global heating are not uniform, some regions suffer from storms, cyclone and sea level rise, other regions suffer from mega-fires.
As an example for the meaningless nature of averages, mean annual body temperature may not be much higher than, say, 37C, even where a patient suffers extreme fever attacks every few weeks or so …
You are correct about Labor, except for the evidence that it has been the federal Coalition government that has pushed at every possible opportunity to support their fossil fuel cronies, actually do nothing, and even make things worse. They even did it again last year by using their Coronavirus task force to inflict the country and world with more natural gas emissions and coal sales. Has Labor ever brought a lump of coal into parliament to make fun of the Liberals?
Look back at Shorten’s pitch last election. It included plans for employment linked to advancing green energy projects, conversion to electric cars, and better CO2 emissions reduction targets etc. But with help from the Coalition’s mate Clive Palmer, who wants an even bigger coal mine than Adani, and fear campaigns set up by the Liberals we got no change. Meanwhile the Greens who have always supported genuine and realistic action are only the target of ridicule in most Australian newspapers.
The media as always gave very little support for Shorten by using the “not popular” meme over and over again, including miss Sales of the ABC. And Australians who appear to be very easily lured by money for such things as sports grants, rolled over and gave the Coalition another go.
Time and time again “leaders” are betraying their original supposed calling.
This time the ALP “leader”, having claimed he is a “conviction politician” “from the left” has given the critical climate shadow ministry to the right wing, with predictable consequences.
The fundamental problem is that everyone is chasing the ratings and the votes, heavily influenced by the commercial media.
The tail is wagging the dog …
So true