A clear path to climate action for Australia
 The Princes Highway to climate action, SMH, Jono La Nauze 2 Feb 2020 In the past few weeks a clear path to real action on climate change has emerged. State and territory governments are aligning on the need for stronger climate policy.If the states act decisively and act together on setting emissions targets they can reduce pollution through an alternative route. Let’s call it the Princes Highway to climate action, because, like the famous road, it passes through the eastern capitals and deliberately avoids Canberra.
The biggest barrier to action has been a lack of political will and outright climate denialism in Federal Parliament, mainly from the Liberal and National parties. Even after the bushfires, the Prime Minister has tried to deflect attention from his party’s failure by focusing the debate on how we can “adapt” to a hotter, more chaotic climate, rather than cutting the pollution that causes it. But at the state level, things have been different. In recent weeks, senior Liberals have been speaking out about the need to cut pollution and have called for stronger climate policy – including the South Australian Premier, the outgoing and incoming Tasmanian premiers, the Victorian Opposition Leader and the NSW Climate and Energy Minister. In South Australia, the Liberal Party shifted a long time ago. When a freak storm toppled transmission lines and blacked out the state, the federal Coalition rolled out an aggressive misinformation campaign blaming the then Labor government’s renewable energy leadership. But when the Liberals came to power they didn’t follow their federal counterparts in trashing wind and solar – instead, they embraced it. “A lot of people thought when I got elected that we would be scaling back the state’s focus on renewable energy, when in fact we are putting the foot to the floor,” said Liberal Premier Steven Marshall on Friday. South Australia is now on track for 75 per cent renewable energy by 2025, and the Premier has linked the recent bushfires to climate change. Every single state and territory in the country has now set a goal of net zero emissions by 2050 – a long-term target the Prime Minister has so far rejected. Of course, the reality is that emissions cuts in the next five and 10 years will count the most. That’s why it’s critical that premiers such as Gladys Berejiklian and Daniel Andrews seize this moment to work with their fellow premiers on a national climate change strategy…….. This is a critical moment that could shift the national debate. If Victoria adopts emissions targets in line with the Paris Agreement, it is possible for other states to follow suit, passing similar legislation and creating a de-facto national climate change strategy – whether Scott Morrison decided to help out or not. In a few years, rather than being stuck in a stalemate at the federal level while temperatures rise and the country burns, we could have agreement between states and territories to get on with the job of lowering emissions and creating a safer future. https://www.smh.com.au/national/the-princes-highway-to-climate-action-20200131-p53wg6.html |
|
|
1 Comment »
Leave a reply to Dennis Matthews Cancel reply
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 
It is not enough to talk about emissions, the relevant quantity is per capita emissions. It is per capita emissions that correlates with consumption/standard of living (not to be confused with quality of life) and unless we are willing to accept a lower consumption then we will not be able to convince countries like India and China to curtail their emissions growth. Having a target of reducing per capita emissions by say 10% whilst the population increases by 10% would give a net reduction in emissions of about 1%.
The per capita emissions of Australia and the US are about twice that of China and there will be no moral argument that China should cut its emissions until their per capita emissions are close to that of countries like the US and Australia. The consequences of China and India having the same per capita emissions as Australia don’t bear thinking about.
High per capita emitting countries need to drastically cut back to a level at least that of China. Unless this happens then there is no moral argument to prevent China from doubling its emissions and India doubling that.
LikeLike