Coalition MPs are in the middle of a debate following the defeat of climate goals, but there seems to be a big Paris-shaped blind spot in their current comment.
Opposition leader Peter Dutton, speaking to ABC at the weekend, was repeatedly asked if he would support the Albanian government’s target of a 43% cut by 2030.
“Our perception is, uh .. we will end up with … uhh … people have not put a number on it, but I would suppose we will end up with something along the lines of 35% with just what we did , “said Dutton, saying the coalition would not support any legislation that put the Albanian government’s goals into law.
Senior Liberal Senator Anne Ruston has said it will be “up to the party room” to debate its climate policy. National leader David Littleproud said Wednesday he supported the goal the coalition took for the last election.
Tasmanian Federal MP Bridget Archer says the 2030 target should be looked atand said “in relation to what the number is, I suppose it is arbitrary to a point,” and what was important was how the goals were achieved.
But no matter what number the coalition comes up with, any new target will have to recognize that there is actually a new baseline for Australia’s level of ambition.
This baseline was set last week when the Albanian government formally submitted its new target of 43% as part of its promise under the UN Climate Convention A document known as a nationally determined contribution (NDC).
Under agreements signed by Australia under this Convention, each submitted NDC must be more ambitious than the one before.
This is what is known as the “garbage mechanism”, and Professor Frank Jotzo, a climate policy expert at the Australian National University, says that any future Australian government that went back on would break the spirit of the convention.
Jotzo told the Temperature Check: “If an Australian opposition were to take on a commitment to a target that was lower than now agreed, then it would involve significant international costs that would have to be taken into account.”
Jotzo pointed out that Australia’s new goals were still seen by many as inadequate. Analysts have said Australia would must have adopted a 2030 target of around 60% to comply with the Paris Climate Agreement.
“In many eyes, the target of 43% is still not enough, but it has been received as a big step in the right direction.”
When the Morrison government last formally communicated to the UN about its promise in late 2020, it was simply resubmitted its target of a 26% to 28% emission reduction by 2030.
Although Australia was not legally bound by its NDC, Jotzo said any decision to go back would affect diplomatic relations with Pacific neighbors and key allies like the United States, send negative signals to investors and could make it harder to negotiate bilateral trade agreements.
At the Glasgow climate negotiations last year, all countries agreed to submit new NDCs by 2025, which would have targets for the year 2035.
So Jotzo said that when the next federal election rolls around in 2025, the debate will only be about the 2035 goal.
Sky News Australia hosted Rowan Dean read out long paragraphs this week of Guardian’s coverage of a report that said his channel was a global content hub for climate denial and rhetoric against renewable energy.
As if to make the report’s broader point, Dean pointed to some recent cool weather and early snowfall in Australia’s alpine region as a reason for people questioning climate science.
“On what planet would a reasonably intelligent, a little curious and possibly skeptical individual not ask that damn obvious thing. Is that in line with predictions about global warming from 20 years ago or is it not?”
Maybe a reasonably skeptical individual knows the difference between climate and weather and understands that these two things are different?
That said, this column last week looked at previous predictions about the effect of global warming on snowfall. There were no predictions that it would not snow, but there were predictions that good snow seasons would come less often than they used to.
Dean then asked a series of other questions without answering them. So let’s take a few, such as his question: “Does the planet really heat up as fast as the models predicted?”
ONE Scientific paper from 2019 looked at 17 climate models produced from the early 1970s to 2007 to see how they fared by predicting temperatures up to 2017. The study showed that 14 of the models were in line with the observed temperatures, two had said the temperatures would be higher than they were, and one had also entered. low.
According to World Meteorological Organizationwhich looked at six major global temperature datasets from e.g. Nasa and the British MetOffice, have each of the last seven years placed somewhere on the list of the seven hottest years ever.
Dean went on to ask if there are “other natural forces at play other than increases in man-made carbon dioxide that we should look at to explain changes in our climate”, as if scientists have not done this.
They have, for decadesand the result will always be the same.
Despite Dean’s earlier claim, a growing number of climate scientists have now blamed the sun for the climate crisis (which climate scientists said was wrong), the driving force behind global warming are rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, mostly from burning fossil fuels.
In interviews earlier this month, former Energy Minister Angus Taylor claimed that Labor’s assistant health and elderly care worker, Ged Kearney, had campaigned to “ban the grill” in flyers she had handed out to her constituents.
The Australian Associated Press’ fact-checking unit investigated whether Kearney really wanted to “ban the grill,” as Taylor and Liberal Senator Hollie Hughes had said.
The fact-checkers hit a “chin” with this claim after searching through references from Taylor’s office, find nothing that resembles advocating for a ban on barbecue.
“The claim is inaccurate,” the AAP concluded.