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
US President Donald Trump on Thursday issued executive orders barring Americans from conducting business with WeChat owner Tencent Holdings and ByteDance, the Beijing-based owner of popular video-sharing app TikTok. The orders are to take effect 45 days after they were signed, which is Sept. 20. The orders accuse WeChat of helping the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) review and remove content that it considers to be politically sensitive, and of using fabricated news to benefit itself. The White House has accused TikTok of collecting users’ information, location data and browsing histories, which could be used by the Chinese government, and pose
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) at a ceremony on July 30 officially commissioned China’s BeiDou-3 satellite navigation system. The constellation of satellites, which is now fully operational, was completed six months ahead of schedule. Its deployment means that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is now in possession of an autonomous, global satellite navigation system to rival the US’ GPS, Russia’s Glonass and the EU’s Galileo. Although Chinese officials have repeatedly sought to reassure the world that BeiDou-3 is primarily a civilian and commercial platform, US and European military experts beg to differ. Teresa Hitchens, a senior research associate at the University of
There are few areas where Beijing, Taipei, and Washington find themselves in agreement these days, but one of them is that the situation in the Taiwan Strait is growing more dangerous. Such a shared assessment quickly breaks down, though, when the question turns to identifying sources of rising tensions. Several Chinese experts and officials I have consulted with recently have argued that Beijing’s increasingly belligerent behavior in the Taiwan Strait is driven mostly by fear. According to this narrative, Beijing is worried that unless it puts a brake on Taiwan’s move away from the mainland, Taiwan could be “lost” forever. They
Former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝), who died on Thursday last week, coined the phrase “new Taiwanese” and used it in some of his public speeches. The concept of “new Taiwanese” was an important link in the chain of his political thought. Lee proposed the term in August 1998 on the eve of the anniversary of the end of the Pacific War. His intention was to consolidate a common understanding around the idea of “new Taiwanese,” and to embody the Taiwanese spirit of never giving up and not fearing hardship, and to create bright prospects for generations to come. However, after
RSS