Australia has been exposed to international pressure to lift its commitment to climate change prior to a virtual summit hosted by the President of the United States. Scott Morrison, And his emission reduction minister, Angus Taylor, made a series of allegations to defend the government’s position.
Are they stacked? Adam morton Look at the evidence.
Morrison: “Excluding exports will reduce domestic emissions by about 36% in Australia. [compared with 2005 levels].. “
This is a new claim that diplomats and analysts frowned upon when Morrison first volunteered. Monday business dinner.. He repeated it to world leaders on Friday morning. No explanation is given as to why this is an effective way to count emission reductions – it is unprecedented in global debate. In the words of one analyst, it’s a “trumpian misrepresentation” of what the data actually says.
Under international greenhouse accounting regulations, Australia’s domestic emissions About 19% lower than 2005 – Claiming that governments are doing more than other governments on a regular basis (returning to whether this is true).
If exports are excluded, the savings will be much greater for simple reasons. You don’t have to count Australia’s liquefied natural gas (LNG) export industry. The industry has grown from almost zero and has been a large energy user in process for the last decade.The· Increased local carbon pollution due to LNG production The acceptance of wind and solar by the Australians offset much of the reduction in emissions from electricity generation.
The logic here collapses quickly. Why are some of the emissions released in Australia not counted as “domestic emissions”? If Australia is not responsible for them, who? Which country buys gas? It is unlikely that Japan, China and South Korea will agree.
With this in mind, is the Western world responsible for the emissions emitted to make commodities purchased from China and developing countries? Or does Australia suggest that the huge emissions associated with international trade are not the responsibility of anyone?
Morrison: “Australia is performing. Since 2005, emissions have been reduced by 19%, which has improved many of the emerging countries. [at the summit].. “
The numbers here are correct, but as is often the case with carbon accounting, the truth is more complicated. Government claims seem to imply that some sort of structural change is underway. In fact, emissions have declined in seven years. Simultaneous In power, most of the cuts took place before 2013 under the Labor Party.
The overwhelming majority of this is not due to reduced fossil fuel usage, but a significant reduction in Queensland’s land reclamation and deforestation under the changes brought about by the State Labor Party Government, some half. This was due to reduced primary forestry and deforestation in arid areas. -Arid area.
There is some evidence that federal carbon prices introduced by workers, Greens, and national independence also had some impact on fossil fuel use during the two years before it was abolished by Tony Abbott.
But if we remove changes in land-use emissions, the country’s carbon pollution has changed little over the last 15 years.And the official government forecast released in December Forecast only 6.8% reduction in emissions Under current policies over the next decade, as other countries are increasingly strengthening their commitments.
Morrison: “We set commitments, meet them, and defeat them.”
This is also virtually correct, but the first question asked when someone says they have achieved their goal is whether the goal was meaningful. Australia has set incredibly generous goals under the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement.
Its first goal was to increase emissions by 8% between 1990 and 2012. The second was a 5% reduction between 2000 and 2020. In both cases, expert advice suggested that Australia should do more to fulfill its role.
As mentioned above, Australia has achieved these goals by counting the massive emission reductions that have resulted from accidental measures taken by the Queensland Government to reduce logging. While these reductions were good for the atmosphere and the planet, they were not driven by climate policy and masked the need to curb the ever-increasing use of fossil fuels.
Morrison: “We are on track to tackle Paris (26% to 28% reduction in emissions by 2030 compared to 2005).”
It is worth noting that there was no scientific or policy basis for the Australian goal set in Paris before going into whether this was true. The United States has set a target of 26-28% in 2025, and Australia has adopted the same number, delaying it by five years to reduce ambition.Climate Change Bureau 45-60% recommended It was cut based on scientific evaluation, but was ignored.
Despite Morrison’s remarks, official government forecasts released in December predicted that Australia was not on track and was expected to fall 22% below 2005 by 2030. Most of the reductions are due to reduced land reclamation, but emissions are due to the unusually low costs of solar and wind power and state policy to support them.
According to government analysis, there were no significant national climate policies to reduce carbon pollution from transportation, industry, or agriculture. All are projected to continue to be released at current levels or to increase over the next decade.
That said, most analysts believe that government forecasts will soon become obsolete due to the extraordinary influx of sunlight that is happening much faster than most people expected. As Taylor says, about a quarter of homes now have rooftop panels. However, official evidence does not support Morrison’s claim, and the sun’s surge is not due to federal policy.
Morrison: “Many countries make promises, but we can’t claim the same achievement record that Australia has consistently.”
This is not straightforward. Australia’s recent emissions records look better than some other countries (eg Canada and New Zealand), mainly due to the transactions requested by the Howard Government under the Kyoto Protocol. The so-called “Australia Clause” allowed us to recognize the historical changes in logging. Removing it, emissions across the rest of the economy have increased since 1990.
Climate Analytics estimates that most countries have actually achieved their past goals, and unlike Australia, they will meet the (overwhelmingly inadequate) 2025 and 2030 goals set at the Paris Summit. It turns out that it is going well. Some went a step further. The UK has reduced emissions by more than 40% since 1990. Australia is miles away from being a world leader and may be lined up with Russia, Brazil and Saudi Arabia as a lagging climate. With expert commentary..
Morrison: “The goal of Paris is to reduce emissions by 70% when measured on an economic scale.”
The Prime Minister here refers to emission intensity, that is, emissions per dollar of GDP generated. According to Climate Analytics analysis, Australia’s emission intensity could decrease by 64% between 2005 and 2030 if the current target is achieved. Sounds loud, but basically it means that the economy will grow significantly while emissions will decrease slightly.
Australia’s performance here is not noticeable. Both the United States and the European Union will record a 70% reduction in emission intensity during that period if the target is met.
Taylor: “Australia has set a goal of 50% reduction per capita.”
Like emission intensity, this is not a formal target, but the government’s 2030 target is projected to lead to a 47% reduction per capita as populations grow and emissions decline. Again, the numbers are more impressive than they really are.
Australia’s reliance on fossil fuels means that Australia has long been one of the highest per capita emissions levels in the world. A group of climate change investors have found that even if they meet their 2030 goals, this placement will not change much. Still, it has the third highest per capita emissions in the G20 after Saudi Arabia and Russia.
Morrison: “The trajectory to Net Zero’s results is not linear. No one I think knows it. The technology mechanics have a long lead time in their development and commercialization. Yes, and with the introduction of technology, we can see a major transformation. “
This claim is in step with the gradual government “Technology, not tax” This approach includes a commitment to spend $ 19 billion on clean technology solutions over a decade in the hope that private investment will continue. This amount is significantly less than some other countries are spending (for example, Germany is spending $ 14 billion on hydrogen alone), most of which is existing funding for clean energy agencies. It’s just a continuation of.
The Prime Minister’s debate on the trajectory of emissions is Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Leaders from the (IPCC) and major countries say it is necessary to avoid the worst climate crisis. They agree that the cuts shouldn’t be linear, but say they need to move forward in the next decade. This is the overall rationale for the Biden Summit.
Morrison: “When did the problem go away? What about the question?”
In fact, it’s both – at least when is it as important as the method? The IPCC has discovered that between 2010 and 2030, global emissions need to be reduced by 45% to give the world the opportunity to limit heating to 1.5 ° C. Developed countries, which have historical responsibility for most emissions, are expected to bear the largest share of this.
Taylor: “Our ambitions are ambitious … there is no doubt about it.”
Here, the numbers really tell the story.
The United States announced on Thursday that it would set twice as many goals as Australia by 2030. 50-52% reduction compared to 2005..
Canada has set a target of 40% to 45% and Japan has set a target of 46% to 50%, but is using the 2013 baseline. The EU has a 2030 reduction target of 55% compared to the 1990 level. The UK will reach 68% in the same period and 78% by 2035. Campaign participants say that some of these goals do not measure keeping the heating required by science limited to 1.5C, but they are all much more ambitious than all. What Australia is proposing is anyway.
Over 100 countries Having set a net zero emission target for 2050, Australia continues to resist due to internal political conflicts over this issue. Morrison’s position is that by then “hopefully” it will be net zero.A briefing with a reporter before the summit, a senior official of the Biden administration Clarified the position of the United States..
“Our colleagues in Australia are aware that a shift will be needed,” officials said. “It’s not enough to follow the existing trajectory, and we hope they will follow the path to deep decarbonization and reach net zero emissions by the middle of the century.”
Australia is discussing climate credentials, are the claims piled up? | Climate change
Source link Australia is discussing climate credentials, are the claims piled up? | Climate change