Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Cutting Australia's carbon emissions by at least 26 per cent by 2030 is a responsible move that does not sacrifice the economy for the environment, Prime Minister Tony Abbott says.
The highly anticipated target based on 2005 levels would leave Australia trailing the international pack on emissions cuts beyond 2020, despite being among the worst greenhouse gas polluters per capita in the Western world.
The proposed figure of 26 to 28 per cent is well below the more ambitious effort climate experts say is needed to limit warming to 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels to avert the worst climate changes.
However Mr Abbott said the government's focus was always on growth and jobs, and the pledge was a "good, solid economically responsible, environmentally responsible target".
Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop, who will lead the Australian delegation at the crucial Paris climate talks this year, said the target was ambitious and the nation was "doing our bit".
Coalition MPs were asked to approve the target in a party room meeting on Tuesday after a cabinet meeting on Monday night.
Sources said Prime Minister Tony Abbott had drastically improved his position on a stronger target in the last six months, and more "moderated" than "directed" Monday night's cabinet discussion.
Environment Minister Greg Hunt said while climate change was occurring, the cost of living and electricity prices were "important and significant for families".
"What we have done is crafted a position for Australia which shows that we [do] our fair share, we do the right thing by the planet, we also do the right thing by families," he said.
Cabinet sources told Fairfax Media on Tuesday that the proposed target was one the government could sell internationally and at home.
The proposal prompted a long party room debate. It is understood the Coalition's climate change sceptics were assuaged by Mr Hunt's economic rationale argument that the target would make the energy market more efficient.
The announcement will fuel the fierce domestic political debate on whether Australia is doing enough to limit carbon pollution. Labor has called on the government to release the scientific modelling upon which the target was based, to prove it is consistent with keeping global warming below 2 degrees
The target is far below that called for by the government's own Climate Change Authority, which called for a 40 to 60 per cent cut on 2000 levels by 2030.
The Academy of Science, Australia's premier scientific institution, wanted emissions curbed by 30 to 40 per cent for the same period.
Abbott defends target
In question time on Tuesday, the first under new speaker Tony Smith, Mr Abbott defended the target as "environmentally responsible" but said, unlike Labor, "we are not going to clobber the economy to protect the environment".
The Prime Minister repeated his earlier statements that Australia's target was the same as the United States', despite the US pledging to reach its 26 to 28 per cent target five years sooner. The Climate Institute calculates the US is on track for a target of 40 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030.
"Now to get back to the precise question that the Member for Melbourne [Adam Bandt] has asked, our commitment, 26 to 28 per cent reduction, entirely in line with the United States commitment, a little less than the New Zealand commitment, somewhat more than the Japanese commitment, much more than the Korean commitment, immeasurably better than the Chinese commitment," Mr Abbott said.
"When it comes to emissions reduction per person, the very best in the developed world."
Labor's environment spokesman Mark Butler told the Parliament the government could "not get its facts straight" on how its target stacked up.
He said the government was misleading to suggest its targets were on par with the US and that the figure put Australia at "the back of the pack" when compared to other rich economies.
At his earlier media conference, Mr Abbott told reporters the government's policy would not depend on a massive scaling back of the coal industry in Australia.
In recent days he has described the setting aside of the environmental approval for Australia's largest coal mine, the Carmichael coal mine in central Queensland, as "tragic for the wider world".
"In fact, the only way to protect the coal industry is to go with the sorts of policies that we have," he said on Tuesday.
'A big fail'
Climate Institute chief executive John Connor said the proposed targets, if right, would be a "big fail" and would do nothing to avoid 2 degrees warming.
The institute has urged a 45 per cent cut on 2005 levels by 2025.
"The prime minister was out on Sunday crowing about per capita pollution reductions but these numbers would leave us still with the highest per capita pollution figures in 2030," Mr Connor said.
"And from an economic perspective we'd be the most pollution intensive economy by 2030."
Leaders from almost 200 nations will gather in Paris from late November to seek a global accord to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
It is considered a critical attempt at consensus after the failed 2009 Copenhagen talks, when a group of developing nations rejected a last-minute deal, bringing two years of negotiations to a fruitless end.
There is no agreed baseline for climate targets at the negotiations. Australia's emissions were particularly high in 2005, so measuring cuts from that year allows the government to pledge a bigger target figure, potentially making its pledge appear more ambitious than it is.
The US has offered the same cuts of 26 to 28 per cent below 2005, but would achieve them five years earlier than Australia.
Canada, whose resource-driven economy is comparable to Australia's, has nominated a 30 per cent cut below 2005 levels by 2030. This target, which would be higher than Australia's for the same period, was seen by critics as too weak.
The European Union has committed to a 40 per cent reduction on 1990 levels.
The release of Australia's target raises questions about whether the government's "direct action" plan to curb emissions is strong enough to make the desired reductions - and how much the measures, largely funded by taxpayers, will cost.
Opposition Leader Bill Shorten said Australia could not afford the Prime Minister's "flat earth views".
"Today, the government must to demonstrate how their targets are consistent with its commitment to the 2 degree warming scenario," he said.
A critical test
"This is a critical test for Tony Abbott. Will he listen to the vast majority of Australians who want action on climate change, or will he be beholden to vested interests and the far right of the Liberal Party?"
Climate change sceptic and West Australian Liberal MP Dennis Jensen immediately condemned the base target as "too high" and said no target was needed.
"I think it would be damaging ... you're going to be forcing electricity prices up, obviously," he told reporters outside Parliament House on Tuesday.
He also lashed out at the news leaking from cabinet before being put to the party room.
"I'm disappointed that these numbers are being floated around there, from outside cabinet quite frankly, when it was promised that there would be significant partyroom discussion on this," he said.
He said as an emissions-intensive economy, there was carbon pollution Australia could not do much about.
But he advocated nuclear as a way of producing emissions-free energy without relying completely on renewables.
Last year was the hottest since records began, raising new fears over global warming and its effects, including rising sea levels, melting glaciers and extreme weather events.
