Unlike US and China, we meet our targets GREG HUNT THE AUSTRALIAN NOVEMBER 20, 2014 12:00AM THE US-China climate agreement is good news for Australia and the world. It should, however, neither be understated by critics nor overstated by boosters. A flaw in the climate debate is that, largely for domestic political reasons, real numbers around emissions have been ignored by many on the Left because of the inconvenient truth that Australia has been a star performer in curbing emissions growth, without a carbon tax, as shown in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change data and other figures released by the Australian government today. In 1998, vice-president Al Gore pledged the US would cut emissions from 1990 to 2008-12, the first Kyoto commitment period, by 7 per cent. In fact, US emissions increased from almost 5.4 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent in 1990 to more than 5.9 billion tonnes in 2010, an overshoot of 500 million tonnes or roughly 18 per cent. By contrast, Australia beat its 2010 Kyoto target by 5 per cent. Our emissions barely changed in 20 years in either real or percentage terms while our population grew by 29 per cent and our economy by 88 per cent. Amazingly, you never hear that comparison from Bill Shorten and fellow-travellers on the Left who seek to demonise Australia. In 20 years, from 1990 to 2010, US emissions grew 53 times more than Australian emissions grew. This is not a criticism but a reality check for those on the Left who proclaim the virtue of pledges but ignore the reality of emissions. Over the same 20-year period, China has brought hundreds of millions out of grinding poverty and the world should rejoice at that achievement. We should also be realistic. From 1990 to 2010 China’s emissions increased from 3.4 billion tonnes to 9.8 billion tonnes — the fastest growth in emissions in human history and 640 times, or 64,000 per cent, greater than any change in Australia. Over the same period Chinese coal consumption increased at the greatest rate in human history. Again this is no criticism: hundreds of millions are experiencing the basic gifts of medicines, refrigeration, heating, cooling and electricity which have long been the privilege of the West. Looking forward to 2020, Australia performs well again. From 1990 to 2020, our emissions will fall from 580 to 555 million tonnes, a 4 per cent reduction. From 1990 to 2020, US emissions will fall from 5.4 to 5.1 billion tonnes, or 5 per cent. This is largely achieved through the increasing use of shale gas, demonised by the Left in Australia but lauded in America. Using the US’s chosen base year of 2005, the 2020 target outcome reflects a 12 per cent decrease for Australia and a 17 per cent decrease for the US. From 1990 to 2020, China’s emissions grow from 3.4 billion tonnes to between 12 and 14 billion tonnes, an increase of more than 270 per cent at the very least. This brings us to last week’s agreement between the US and China. If, unlike the 1998 pledge, the US achieves its 2025 goal, that will mean important reductions in emissions. If China stabilises before 2030, that will also be positive, although billions of tonnes will be added before then and will continue to be added afterwards. We need to understand three features of the agreement, however. First, it is non-binding. Second, contrary to what Shorten and others suggest, the agreement emphasises nuclear power, cleaning up coal-fired power stations, and shale gas, as well as encouraging renewables. Third, there is no mention of carbon taxes or equivalent schemes. This could be because the US has rejected a national carbon tax and while China has some city-based pilots it gives away 99 to 100 per cent of permits free. The lesson is clear. While many promised, Australia delivered on our targets. While the Greens complain, we are getting on with the job, cleaning up coal, using new forms of gas, rehabilitating our landscapes and encouraging renewables. It’s a workable formula and the mightiest economies in the world are cutting emissions without a carbon tax. In what can only be described as a weird intervention, Shorten attacked Australia for not committing billions to a climate fund abroad when the recipients aren’t known, the projects aren’t known and the mechanisms for allocating the funds are unknown. Yet he opposes investing $2.5 billion through a market auction based on the lowest cost per tonne for Australian projects such as improving our soils, reducing emissions from bushfires, encouraging energy efficiency in homes and commercial buildings, and cleaning up our brown coal power stations. And he wants to talk about weird? Ultimately we can cut our emissions without a massive electricity tax. Our emissions have been almost stable for 20 years. It’s time the ALP stopped talking down Australia and acknowledged we’ve delivered on our targets. And that’s good news for the planet. Greg Hunt is the federal Minister for the Environment. theaustralian.au/opinion/unlike-us-and-china-we-meet-our-targets/story-e6frg6zo-1227128827521
Posted on: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 01:31:47 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015