Garnaut says “Can’t win, don’t try”
Prof. Ross Garnaut has finally announced his recommendations for the amount of emissions Australia should cut over the next decade - and it’s pretty depressing stuff. He has recommended a target of 10% cuts by 2020, with deeper cuts to come later. Given that the IPCC and respected climate scientist James Hanson argue that we’ve got less than a decade to prevent the worst of climate change, this looks pathetic. It seems like he’s admitted that we’re going to suffer the effects of climate change anyway, and we’ll never get enough political action on the issue, so we might as well not put too much effort into making urgent reductions. I don’t think I have to tell you that I’m pretty angry about this.
The IPCC suggests that to stabilise our greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at 450 parts per million, we would have to reduce our emissions by at least 25-40% by 2020. Setting an upper limit of 550ppm, as Garnaut proposes, means that carbon feedback cycles will have already kicked in and accelerated the rate of change well beyond what we can handle.
This really is a “business as usual” policy from Garnaut. It allows corporations to make a few changes and then carry on polluting as they always have. Combined with the free emissions-permits that will be handed out like lollies to the big polluters, I can’t see how this plan will make any difference at all. Australia will have no ability to convince other nations to do the right thing if we won’t put our money where our mouth is.
If this is the best the world can come up with, it will certainly lead to us losing the Greenland ice (I suspect we haven’t got much hope of stopping the Arctic ice from going now); sea level rises that will be terrible for neighbouring countries and a huge logistical problem for us; and a much increased rate of species extinction as the habitats plants and animals are used to are changed beyond recovery. I guess Garnaut’s completely given up on the Great Barrier Reef, the Murray-Darling Basin, the South-West region (a biodiversity hotspot), Kakadu, and countless other areas that aren’t famous, but are special all the same.
Garnaut states that if an international agreement is reached for higher cuts in our emissions, it will be worthwhile for us to make larger cuts too. This seems pretty weak considering that just a short time ago he was calling for us to lead by example and develop new technologies that would innovate our industries to create a low-carbon future. He says that there’s not much support for an international agreement that will allow the world to reach 450ppm of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere, so we’ll have to plan for one that allows 550ppm instead. I say that just because something is difficult, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try anyway.
How can we make sure that the proposed Emissions Trading Scheme sets higher goals? I wish I had an answer. I’m off to buy a 50% by 2020 shirt from GetUp. I’m fed up: I want people to know my opinion and show that there’s public support for politicians to take the hard road instead of the easy one. I’m also going to do some research into ways that maybe we can get harder targets set - which politicians to bother, which groups are taking action. If you have any ideas, I’d love to hear them, so please leave a comment!
September 8th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Julie, if team Rudd even try to set 10% for 2020 and try and legislate via their ETS, then the Greens will block them in the Senate. Well, that is what I hope will happen. Labor will not have a hope in hell of getting elected again if they do set a low target.
The Australian people are not stupid, just the policy makers! However, I am not sure that the opposition party would be any better, seeing that they actually have denied Climate Change for the past 11 years, and kept the coal, mining, and oil industries fit and healthy through massive subsidies, which have continued to be funded under this government.
I too am very pissed off. It looks like Garnaut has just been bought by one of the large corporate polluters. Why would one go from saying it is not too late and we should have a 40% target in his first paper, to saying that 10% will be good enough! What a cop out. We are, and always will be the laughing stock of the entire world when it comes down to our climate change policies. The world is watching what happens here, and we, the Australian people are experiencing climate change on a scale never see in the rest of the western world. We are the very first western country to be fully affected by climate change, but are still operating like the three wise monkeys!
I do think action groups like Getup! and the WE campain have some clout when it comes to political activism, but it take a lot of interested people to join before a groundswell happens at the grass roots level. We can but try. I am with you all the way, and reckon there should be a coalition of concerned bloggers about climate change. That sounds like a good way to start some pretty powerful activism. Lets hope the rest of our country men & women join the cause and wake up and smell the winds of change, before it is too late!
450ppm, too close, 550ppm, too bloody late, 350ppm, just right.
September 9th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
As you say, it takes a lot of interested people to get a shift happening - I think we need to start getting noisier about what we want, or we’ll be drowned out by the scaremongering of the big polluters.