Despite optimistic expectations for significant action, the Rudd government announcement on Monday 15 December of its long-awaited climate change targets, including a five per cent cut in carbon emissions by 2020, has been met with scepticism and disappointment.

 

Research Professor with the Charles Sturt University (CSU) Institute of Land, Water and Society, Professor Kevin Parton, said he was perplexed by the policy stance of the government because the five to 15 per cent target reductions in greenhouse gas emissions (below 2000 emissions) by 2020 is not what he expected.

 

And according to  Mr Tom Murphy, Chief Executive Officer of the Western Research Institute Ltd  at CSU, the targets are disappointing and are much less than the Garnaut Report’s estimate of what Australia’s fair share would be to reduce emissions by 10 per cent by 2020 and 80 per cent by 2050.

 

Professor Parton emphasised that the balance of scientific opinion, and the opinion presented in the Garnaut Report, is that the government’s announcement is a low target, and if reproduced by other countries around the world would see dangerous climate change.

 

“Garnaut favoured stricter emissions reductions, and it seemed that before yesterday’s announcements the government was heading towards the more reasonable, and higher level of emission controls suggested by him,” Professor Parton said.

 

“Given this low starting target, it does seem hard to accept statements elsewhere in the White Paper that ‘The Australian Government has a substantial commitment to reduce our carbon pollution by 60 per cent of 2000 levels by 2050’. Such a level of reduction is considered the order of magnitude required to avoid the risks of catastrophic climate change.

 

“Perhaps the most significant problem with announcing such a low emission reduction target is that Australia may miss the opportunity to be a leader in the international negotiations to drive global climate change policy. We may not be taken seriously.

 

“Furthermore, much economic analysis has gone into showing that more stringent carbon reduction targets would have cost us little in terms of economic growth,” he said.

 

Mr Murphy observed that Australia’s absolute contribution to green house emissions is miniscule, so it’s the demonstration effect to the rest of the world that is important.

 

“For Australia to do less than its own estimate of its fair share, and then claim the complicating circumstances of population growth, is sending the wrong signal when the signal is the most important part of the policy,” Mr Murphy said.

 

“The Garnaut Report estimated the cost of its modest targets was about 0.2 per cent of growth in gross domestic product (GDP) per year, and doing more would have almost no effect on living standards. Professor Garnaut notes ‘Of all developed countries, Australia probably has the most to lose from inaction and the most to gain from action’, and cites examples of the loss of the Great Barrier Reef and the ‘death’ of the Murray-Darling Basin etc. Therefore, this is a bad one for Australia to mess up.

 

“The government’s modest white paper target fails to acknowledge the tremendous opportunity for green industries and green jobs. This is already progressing in Europe, and Australia runs the risk of being left behind in terms of green industries and skills as the world economy inevitably transforms to one that is significantly less carbon emitting.