Share this @internewscast.com
Climate action advocates are voicing concerns that the federal government’s revised 2035 emissions reduction target significantly misses the scientific mark, while the Coalition dismisses the plan as unrealistic.
Opposition leader Sussan Ley criticized the government for not detailing the financial impact of achieving a 62 to 70 per cent reduction by 2035, relative to 2005 levels.
“Targets must be realistic and attainable. These are not,” she stated at an afternoon press conference, emphasizing that the Coalition would resist legislative efforts to enforce the target.
The commitment builds on the government’s existing 2030 target to cut emissions by 43 per cent on 2005 levels and serves as another stepping stone on the way to net zero by 2050.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said his government “knows climate change is real”, while Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen said the updated target would be “achievable and ambitious”.
Albanese said emissions would need to be reduced the most in transport, industry and electricity sectors.
But experts and climate action advocates widely condemned the target as inadequate.
Australian Conservation Foundation climate and energy program manager Gavan McFadzean said the target range “condemns Australian communities to ongoing climate harm and is embarrassing in the face of the climate leadership being shown by our Pacific neighbours and states like Victoria and New South Wales.”
“Wealthy countries such as Australia that have grown economically on the back of coal and gas pollution have the ability — and responsibility — to make much deeper cuts than this,” McFadzean said.
Head of the World Wide Fund for Nature’s (WWF) Australian branch, Dermot O’Gorman, said the target “falls dangerously short of what the science demands”.
The head of Emergency Leaders for Climate Action — a coalition of 38 former fire and emergency service chiefs — also said the government’s target range “falls dangerously short of what the science tells us is needed”
“It’s like deciding to send too few fire trucks to a massive bushfire event,” said Greg Mullins, a former commissioner of Fire & Rescue NSW.
“Greater action is needed to shield Australians from the escalating climate crisis,” Mullins insisted, advocating for a target striving for “as close to net zero by 2035 as possible”.
‘Grounded in fantasy land’
Ley promised on Thursday that the Coalition would “interrogate and test this announcement for cost and credibility”.
“It can’t be believed because the government assumes that the 2030 target is in fact met, when clearly it will not be. The credibility is in tatters,” she said.
“In addition to that, there is nothing in this announcement that demonstrates to Australians how much it will cost.”
“We will hold them to account because we know this is grounded in fantasy land. Targets must be achievable and realistic. And these are not,” said Ley, whose party room has been riven by climate policy dispute since the Coalition’s landslide defeat in this year’s federal election.
“[Deputy opposition leader] Ted [O’Brien] and I have just come out of a shadow cabinet meeting and I can assure you there was absolutely no division in opposing Labor’s latest piece of train wreck energy policy”.
Ley refrained from revealing the Coalition’s alternative strategy, mentioning only that “our energy policy is undergoing a comprehensive development process”.
‘Not likely to please anyone’
Professor Jacqueline Peel from the the University of Melbourne Law School said the target was “not likely to please anyone”.
“Progressive business called for a 75 cent cut, civil society for an 85 per cent or above target, and on the right, the Coalition opposition is stuck in a diabolical debate about whether to even have Australia stick with a net zero by 2050 target,” she said.
“A target is just the initial segment of any country’s climate initiative, with the part two implementation phase being crucial in assessing the ambition of this pledge,” she remarked.
Wesley Morgan, a research associate from the Institute for Climate Risk & Response at the University of New South Wales, highlighted Australia’s ongoing bid to co-host next year’s top-level Conference of the Parties (COP) climate talks with Pacific neighbours, warning that “Pacific nations are watching Australia’s ambition closely”.
“Pacific island countries are fighting for survival, and want to see all countries set a target that is in line with limiting warming to 1.5C”, Morgan said.
“To align with global efforts to limit warming to 1.5C, our 2035 target needed to reflect at least a 75 per cent cut from 2005 levels by 2035.”
‘A big lift’
Innes Willox, chief executive of national employer association Australian Industry Group, said achieving the government’s planned emissions reductions would require “a big lift”.
“Even reaching 62 per cent will challenge policy makers, industry and households,” Willox said.
“Delivering 70 per cent will only be possible with favourable tailwinds from technology, global markets and the right policy settings, especially to allow for the construction and delivery of significant infrastructure.
“Though challenging, this target is achievable with diligent effort and a strong emphasis on transforming Australia into an attractive investment and development hub.”
Head of mining giant Fortescue Andrew ‘Twiggy’ Forrest, said Labor had showed “courage of leadership” for “setting a 2035 target that builds upon, and reaches beyond, the ambition of 2030”.
However, he stressed that the upper range of the target — 70 per cent — “must be a floor, not a ceiling”.
“A cut of at least 75 per cent is what is needed for Australia to pursue emissions reductions in line with the science. This remains the only course that can avert the accelerating impacts of a world warmed beyond 1.5C,” he said in a statement.
“A 62 per cent to 70 per cent range is a step forward, but it sends a signal that we are comfortable with the status quo. Australia is capable of much more and the world is watching,” said Forrest.
