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
As Taiwan is facing global crises from the COVID-19 pandemic to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, it is again time to take stock. In terms of public health, Taiwan has made it through the COVID-19 challenge quite well. By combining masking, vaccinations and border controls, it has achieved a sufficiently protective herd immunity and is expected to end quarantine requirements for incoming travelers by the end of the summer. What about Ukraine? Here, Taiwan must assess four key players in its region. The first is Russia, which must be seen as a developing enemy. When the Soviet Union broke up in 1991, Ukraine declared
During an online keynote speech on June 12, Legislative Speaker You Si-kun (游錫堃) said that when he was premier, he already knew that the Yun Feng (雲峰, Cloud Peak) medium-range supersonic land-attack cruise missile developed in Taiwan could reach Beijing. If Beijing were to attack Taiwan, Taipei would respond by firing the missiles and China would regret its aggression, he said. You’s comments were met by immediate criticism from political commentator Lai Yueh-tchienn (賴岳謙), who said that the Cloud Peak relied on guidance from the US’ Global Positioning System (GPS) to find its target. If war broke out in the Taiwan Strait,
China’s third aircraft carrier, the Fujian, was launched on Friday. With a total displacement of more than 80,000 tonnes, the vessel is the largest of China’s three aircraft carriers. According to reports, the Fujian is about 300m long and 78m across at its widest point. It is conventionally powered, with a maximum speed of about 30 knots (55.6kph) and can carry 60 aircraft — including about 40 fighter jets, helicopters and airborne early warning and control aircraft. The deck of the carrier is equipped with an electromagnetic catapult system, which can speed up the take-off and landing of fighter jets. Once it
Two awards for contribution to the study of Sinology were announced on Monday. The first was for British art historian Jessica Rawson, named this year’s winner of the Tang Prize in Sinology. The Tang Prize was established in 2012 by Taiwanese entrepreneur Samuel Yin (尹衍樑). The second was for Slovenian Sinologist Jana Rosker, who won the Taiwan-France Cultural Award — established by the Ministry of Culture and the Institut de France’s Academy of Moral and Political Sciences — for her work introducing Taiwanese philosophy to Europe. Rosker said that Taiwan has integrated Western philosophy and Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism into a
RSS