Go Greener, Australia

I’ve been puzzling over this for a few days now. Here’s what Garnaut had to say about the how serious climate change is for Australia:

“If we fail, on a balance of probabilities, the failure of our generation will haunt humanity until the end of time,” he told reporters in Canberra. We are entering territory here that humanity has not been in before. We will delude ourselves if we think that uncertainty about the climate change science… is a cause for delay.” (The West Australian)

Well said, I agree. Strong cuts to our greenhouse gas emissions are necessary. What kind of cuts do you think will do the job?

Prof Garnaut has recommended Australia push for a strong global climate pact, which would mean a 25 per cent cut in emissions by 2020. “Strong mitigation, with Australia playing its proportionate part, is in Australia’s interests,” the report says. This ambitious target would be in the context of a global deal to keep atmospheric carbon concentration to 450 parts per million (ppm). (as above)

“(Australia) should express its willingness to reduce its own entitlements to emissions from 2000 levels by 25 per cent by 2020, and by 90 per cent by 2050 in the context of an international agreement.” (Herald Sun)

Ok, well, 450ppm is alright, I suppose. I think aiming for 350ppm would be more likely to give us good results, and a bit of leeway in case we can’t quite acheive that number, but we can’t agree on everything, I guess. So what course of action will you be recommending to the Australian government?

“There are reasonable chances of a practical agreement adding up to 550ppm concentrations in the atmosphere. Australia’s fair share of such an agreement would be to reduce emissions from 2000 levels by 10 per cent by 2020 and 80 per cent by 2050. Australia should offer to play its full part in such an agreement.” (Garnaut Review press release)

Sorry, what was that? 550ppm? But that’s going to put us past quite a few tipping points. It’s as good as doing nothing at all. What happened to you liking 450ppm?

“Such an agreement, aimed at 450ppm would not be easy to reach. It would place constraints on emissions from both developed and developing countries that go beyond what is being discussed and, more importantly, planned, for any but a few countries.” (as above)

He knows what needs to be done. He knows how urgent it is. But his recommendation to the government is that we won’t be able to achieve what’s necessary, so we shouldn’t commit to doing anything more than the bare minimum. WTF?

I’m not the only one who thinks this is depressing and weird. Tim Hollo discusses Garnaut’s defeatism (also, check out the other posts at Crikey’s new group blog on environmental topics) and Clive Hamilton thinks Politics trumps science in Garnaut Report.

This entry was posted on Sunday, October 5th, 2008 at 8:12 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.