2020-02-28
Rapid decarbonization by Australia is seen as the only way we can maintain a lifestyle to which we, and indeed the world, are accustomed to
By Chris Johansen, GI Co-editor
These days, it seems rather banal to be starting an article with a statement that the science of climate change is understood. However, there remains a vocal minority of those trying to undermine this understanding, mainly due to evidence-free ideology and vested interest in continuation of traditional industries. Unfortunately, this minority continues to be highly influential through its far-reaching media control and political power. Their continued strong influence will hasten the demise of the planet’s life support systems, a process now underway and visible to all.
This season’s unprecedented record temperatures, drought and bushfires, mainly in eastern Australia, have got ordinary people thinking about the relationships between these factors and climate change. Recent polls suggest that a majority want increased government action on climate change. The 2008 Garnaut climate change review was fairly accurate in this regard, predicting such events by 2020 if no serious action on climate change at both national and global levels was initiated back then.
Some in the federal Coalition government are now actually admitting that climate change may be implicated in these events, and say that they will be stepping up their recovery and adaptation measures. However, they have swept under the carpet any further conversation about climate change mitigation saying Australia’s emissions are negligible, at 1.3% of the global total and that we could not possibly influence other higher-emitting nations to cut back.
The global situation with respect to greenhouse gas emissions is summarized in this graphic by Carbon Tracker. Current policies across all countries, and even pledges for future emissions reductions, put us on track for around a 3°C heating. We see what is happening at the current 1°C, and don’t need much imagination to predict what will happen after exceeding the current IPCC critical limit of 1.5°C, let alone their earlier limit of 2°C. All of the science tells us that our only option in retaining a planet anything like we are used to is a crash program in emissions reduction aimed at zero net global emissions by 2050.
Firstly, lets us be clear about Australia’s contribution to global warming – claimed by the Coalition government to be miniscule at 1.3% of global total (Australia’s emissions in the year to March 2019 were near 540 million tonnes of CO2-e, excluding land-use and forestry). However, Australia is the third largest exporter of fossil fuels, after Saudi Arabia and Russia, with nearly 1,000 Mt CO2-e as coal in 2018-19 and around 180 Mt CO2-e as liquified natural gas (LNG) in 2018-19; and these quantities are escalating year by year. So, when fossil fuel exports are considered, Australia’s contribution to global greenhouse gases is in the range of 4%.
However, both the Coalition and Labor cleverly (they think) point out that the internationally accepted IPCC method of greenhouse gas accounting is that emissions are only attributed to the country in which these fossil fuels are actually burned. They take no responsibility whatsoever for these Scope 3 emissions, essentially saying that what countries do with the Australian coal and LNG they receive is up to them (what else are they going to do with them but burn them?). Hence, both the Coalition and Labor support continued and expanded export of coal and LNG into the indefinite future, giving unqualified support to the miners and exporters whose plans for their businesses go well beyond 2050. Indeed, by 2030 these fossil fuel exports, along with emissions within Australia, are projected to reach 13% (mean, with range 11.9% – 17.4%) of global emissions, far from miniscule.
This absolving of responsibility for fossil fuel exports by the Coalition and Labor is completely analogous to absolving drug dealers from selling harmful drugs (which is rather opposite to the usual attitude of conservative politicians towards drug dealers). It is the same as saying that drug dealers have no culpability for the use to which the drugs they sell are put. Fossil fuel exporters have culpability for hastening the destruction of the planet.
Surely, if the Coalition and Labor were in any way serious about climate action they would be establishing policies to phase out fossil fuel exports as quickly as possible, with plausible transition pathways for the workers involved (not many actually as the process is largely becoming automated). And it is not likely that government coffers would be unduly affected as the companies involved in fossil fuel exports are rather adept in avoiding taxes and royalties, and what the government can collect largely returns as subsidies to the fossil fuel industry.
The following graphic explores consequences of taking various pathways regarding climate change into the future.
Following pathway a, which is business as usual (“Current policies” in the Carbon Tracker graphic) in Australia and the world will inevitably lead to climate catastrophe. The only unknown is when, during the course of this century, that point will be reached (10, 50 ,70 years hence?). This will depend on when tipping points are reached and feedbacks kick in (more on this later). The timing of these is not very predictable at the moment even though their beginnings are now recognizable.
If as in pathway b, Australia continued its emissions and fossil fuel exports but the rest of the world rapidly decarbonized, partial global mitigation would be possible, say, keeping below 2°C. Australia would similar benefit from this amount of mitigation – leading us to think that we could “have our cake and eat it too”. However, in this scenario Australia would rapidly become a pariah state, and be treated in the same manner as was apartheid South Africa and as North Korea and Iran are now – devastating economic and self-perception (particularly with regard to sport) consequences. And, markets for fossil fuel exports would quickly dry up, leaving us with a stranded asset problem, usually only addressed with taxpayer dollars.
In pathway c, if Australia rapidly does the right thing and decarbonizes post haste, but the rest of the world does not, then we will still end up in apocalyptic territory. This is a favorite argument of the Coalition – why bother doing anything if the rest of the world doesn’t?
The only hope for Australia to continue with a standard of living resembling what we are now used to is to rigorously pursue pathway d. This means reducing emissions and phasing out fossil fuel exports as quickly as possible. It is necessary that we become an exemplary example of decarbonization if we are going to encourage decarbonization in other countries. And it is not as if Australia will be alone in this advocacy as there are many countries (e.g. European ones, New Zealand, etc.) and jurisdictions (e.g. California, ACT) now seriously decarbonizing. Australia has a long way to go to dispel its reputation as a climate action laggard, and even saboteur, which was entrenched at the recent UN Climate Change Conference in Madrid.
As mentioned earlier, we don’t know when these feedback mechanisms of climate change will click in to cause irreversible tipping points towards runaway climate change. Some of these feedbacks are now readily observable. Closest to home is this record-breaking bushfire season, with the raised levels global greenhouse gases facilitating bushfires and those fires putting even more greenhouse gases into atmosphere. The decline of the arctic ice sheet over the last decade is causing more heat to be absorbed in that region rather than reflected off the white ice, resulting in the arctic warming at a greater rate than the rest of the planet. Melting of the arctic permafrost will release huge quantities of methane, a greenhouse gas >80 times more potent than CO2 over a 20-year time frame. Long term glacial melts are apparent everywhere from Antarctica, through the Himalayas and Alps, and to Greenland but it is not known how that process will accelerate, only that it will, to substantially raise sea levels. Marine ecologists seem to think that coral reefs have reached their tipping point, never likely to recover to their former glory but more likely to continue deteriorating. And so on.
So, when is the time to drastically step up climate action – yesterday actually, or rather decades ago when all of this was predicted but buried in scientific journals. In 2011 the Australian Government’s Climate Commission (abolished by the Abbott government only to re-emerge as the crowd funded Climate Council) designated 2011-2020 as the “critical decade” requiring concerted action to prevent events that they predicted we would we see today; and we do. The “critical decade” has now passed, but don’t breathe a sigh of relief, scientific opinion suggests we have just entered the “last chance” decade.
It is not as if we don’t have the technology to successfully follow pathway d, from today. Renewable energy is now cheaper than fossil fuel energy in most jurisdictions and we have long since known how to plant trees. The only barrier to maintaining a liveable planet is the ideology and vested interests of a relative few, albeit a few with disproportionate influence. We really need to step up our efforts to dismantle that influence, at least for the sake of our progeny.
Header photo: Bushfires in the Adelaide Hills, December 2019. Credit: ABC
[Opinions expressed are those of the author and not official policy of Greens WA]