Few countries have such a fundamental interest in addressing climate change as Australia. Yet Australia’s current conservative government refuses to take necessary actions in response to climate science: to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, and therefore play its part as a responsible member of the international community. Instead, we Australians are now free-riding on the rest of the world.
The Australian government is not listening to the international business community, despite the fact that investors responsible for US$2.4 trillion in assets recently pledged to move to carbon-neutral portfolios by 2050. It is also out of step with Australia’s military leadership, which recognizes the threat to global security from climate change, as well as the increasing strain caused by constant disaster-relief missions in the region.
The government is showing disrespect for the public, especially young people, many of whom are beginning to dread the world they would inherit.
According to Australia’s national scientific body, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, our climate has already warmed by 1°C since 1910. Our mid-year rainfall has declined by 20 percent since the 1970s in some parts of the country. Our farmers face droughts that are 20 percent longer, prolonging and intensifying bushfire seasons.
The economic cost of natural disasters is already enormous: US$182 billion in the decade to 2016, according to Deloitte Access Economics.
Sea levels are projected to rise by almost 1m by 2100, threatening 35,000km of coastal road and rail infrastructure. Natural disasters do not only take lives, destroy homes and ruin livelihoods. They also close ports, sap insurance pools, devastate food production and blow up government budgets.
Conversely, the transition to a cleaner future, if managed well, could be an economic boon for Australia. Our vast natural-gas resources represent a cleaner option for making the transition from coal and oil.
There is enormous potential for solar-power generation across our vast, sunshine-drenched land, and the costs of solar are coming down. The same goes for wind energy, owing to our long coastline and sprawling interior. Our scientists, researchers and renewable-energy entrepreneurs are brimming with exportable expertise.
IN REVERSE
Rather than reduce emissions, Australia has expanded its national carbon footprint by an average of 1 percent per year since my government left office in 2013. Indeed, we are on track for an 8 percent increase (from 2005 levels) by 2030.
By contrast, the World Resources Institute predicts that almost 60 countries accounting for more than 60 percent of global emissions, including China, would have already reached peak emissions by that time. This fact alone demolishes the claim routinely used by Australian conservatives that Australia should not act because China has not.
The national emissions target adopted by Australia’s conservative government back in 2015 calls for a 26-28 percent reduction by 2030; but it was based on deception. The government of then-prime minister Tony Abbott chose it because it mirrored former US president Barack Obama’s projection of a 26-28 percent reduction in US emissions by 2025.
Abbott falsely claimed his target was “the same as the United States,” when he knew full well that Obama’s target represented a much larger cut of 41 percent if pushed out to 2030. Abbott was aided by the complicit, climate-denialist Rupert Murdoch-owned media, which reinforced the lie.
Despite this already debased target, conservative Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison is now relying on a dubious accounting trick to reach this goal, by using so-called “carryover credits” to bank Australia’s “overachievement” under the Kyoto Protocol, much of which occurred under my government.
A WAY FORWARD
So, what could more responsible Australian governments have brought to the table? Here are five concrete ideas.
First, Australia could have pledged a proper review of its 2015 climate target, one that accorded with the spirit and substance of the Paris Agreement. If the government’s much-vaunted new hydro-power scheme (Snowy Hydro 2.0) is really as promising as it says, raising our national ambitions should be no problem.
Second, Australia could have dumped the two-card monte with the unused Kyoto credits. This flimflam is loathed by our Pacific neighbors, and is now being used by other countries to attack Australia on the world stage.
Third, Australia could have laid out a timeline for a long-term decarbonization strategy, as the Paris Agreement invites us to do. This work should already be well advanced, given that the government has promised it next year.
Fourth, as part of that strategy, Australia could have committed to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050, and then worked backwards from there. The UK and New Zealand have already done this, as have 60 other countries and three Australian states.
Finally, we could have followed the lead of the UK, France and others in offering to replenish the Green Climate Fund, rather than repackaging old pledges, which puts the burden on needy countries by making them apply directly to us rather than to a single global source.
Sadly, Australia’s government did none of these things. Instead, it has been shutting its eyes while our farmers struggle, the Great Barrier Reef bleaches away and more ferocious natural disasters claim our people’s lives.
Australia’s opposition, the Labor Party, is now formally reviewing its climate policies after its election loss last May. Despite the fulminations of the far right and the faux left, this introspection is entirely normal. The far right has no interest in climate action at all; and the Green Party of the faux left has always made the perfect the enemy of the good.
No one in Australia would ever forget that the Green Party joined ranks with the conservatives to defeat my government’s emissions-trading-scheme legislation in the senate. Had they not done so, Australia would have already had a carbon price for a decade, and would be that much closer to a low-carbon future.
Australians deserve better than this. So does the next generation. So, too, does the world.
Kevin Rudd, a former prime minister of Australia, is president of the Asia Society Policy Institute in New York.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Russian President Vladimir Putin is an expert at bluffing and keeping the West on its toes, pushing relations to the edge before pivoting without warning. However, hemmed in and fuming, he is deadly serious about being heard on Ukraine. Those close to the Kremlin said that the Russian president does not want to start another war in Ukraine. Still, he must show he is ready to fight if necessary in order to stop what he sees as an existential security threat: the creeping expansion of the NATO in a country that for centuries had been part of Russia. After years of disillusionment
The Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) sixth plenary session has ended and from all appearances, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) has set the stage to rule for the rest of his life. Some might be tempted to declare that this calls for Xi to do a victory lap, but all is not well on the other side of the Taiwan Strait. To parody a line from Ya Got Trouble, a song from Broadway musical The Music Man: “There’s trouble in River City, (aka, Beijing). Trouble with a capital T, which rhymes with C for CCP.” Why? Taking control of a nation is always much
Among the voices expressing concern for Chinese tennis player Peng Shuai (彭帥) over the past two weeks, one was barely audible — that of her long-time former doubles partner Hsieh Su-wei (謝淑薇). Following their defeat in the WTA Finals championship match in Mexico on Nov. 18, Taiwan’s Hsieh and her Belgian partner Elise Mertens fielded questions via a Zoom call. Chinese state media had just released an incredibly suspicious e-mail, purportedly from Peng, and Canadian tennis Web site Open Court broached the issue. With the entire tennis world chiming in, seeking Hsieh’s opinion seemed obvious. However, the Web site’s reporter prefaced her question
When analyzing Taiwan-China tensions, most people assume that the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) consists of rational actors. Embedded within this belief are three further suppositions: First, Beijing would only launch an attack on Taiwan if it were in China’s national interest; second, it would only attack if the odds were overwhelmingly in its favor; and third, Chinese decisionmakers interpret information objectively and through the same lens as other actors. These assumptions have underpinned recent analyses — including by Minister of National Defense Chiu Kuo-cheng (邱國正) — concluding that there is no
RSS