Low Impact

I saw this story on the ABC News web site today in which Dr Brendan Nelson (Federal Leader of the Opposition) said that cuts of 25 to 30% of Australian carbon emissions by 2020 would “have [a] devastating impact on our economic development”. This was in response to reports that the Australian delegation to a working group at the United Nations talks in Bali has said that it supports cuts of 25 to 40 per cent for developed countries by 2020.

I found his statement pretty disappointing.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has said that current research suggests that emissions will need to be cut by at least 50% by 2050 in order to limit the average global temperature increase to no more than 2 degrees celsius. Any more than 2 degrees stands a good chance of precipitating dangerous climate change.

In light of these findings, it would seem only prudent that we try to reach cuts of that magnitude by 2020. Adjusting the world economy to cut its collective carbon emissions by more than 50% is not something you want to leave to the last moment!

Clearly large cuts of these levels will require concerted effort from industry as well as individuals. Unavoidably, there will be adjustments. Some industries stand to suffer, whilst others stand to benefit from new opportunities and commercial niches. Despite these adjustments, a number of studies have shown that taking action does not have to “devastate the economy”. The latest IPCC report suggested that these sorts of target could cause a reduction of baseline annual Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of less than 5.5%.  Note that this is a 5% reduction on what the GDP would otherwise be in 2050, not our current GDP!

With all this potential change ahead of us, I’d have hoped that the various sides of politics could come together to constructively work out our path forward.

This doesn’t mean that the Federal Opposition should roll over and uncritically endorse the Government’s actions - thats not in anyone’s interest. But a strong Opposition could offer constructive criticism - suggest better ways of reaching these targets that scientists are telling us are required to safeguard the livelihood and futures of this generation and the next.

By contrast, disregarding the scientific consensus and preying on people’s fear of the impact on their hip pocket smacks of opportunism.

Categories: community, energy, environment, media

Tags: emissions, politics, targets