The Australian Government likes to claim we are doing our part to avoid dangerous climate change. Australia’s current target is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 5 to 25 per cent by 2020, compared to 2000 emissions levels, with a 60 per cent drop by 2050.

This sounds impressive enough, and there is no doubt that this will require transformative changes in energy use if it is to be achieved. Other developed countries have similar targets. President Obama’s aim for the USA, for instance, is to get back to 1990 levels by 2020 and 80 per cent lower by 2050.

Photo by Daniel Alonso, used under Creative Commons (Attribution) licence.

So we’re doing our bit. But is this bit enough, or fair, or feasible? In short, no, no and no. Let me explain.

The problem with our emissions reduction target boils down to historical and current inequities. Consider the year 2000 baseline that is Australia’s carbon policy yardstick. In that year, human-caused carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions were about 34 billion tonnes globally. That’s a huge number, but it’s not so hard to put into context. For a world population of 6.5 billion people, it’s a little over 5 tonnes ‘er capita – that is, for each and every man, woman and child on the planet.

Australia’s per captia emissions, by contrast, are about 25 tonnes, which is about the same as the US, half that of the UK, and a third that of France. As you can imagine, the developing world’s average is much lower – about 4 tonnes for China, 2 tonnes for India and a measly 1 tonne for Bangladesh.

Now, in a recent issue of the science journal Nature, the useful idea of total global carbon budgets was presented. The startling bottom line of this published analysis was that if we wish to avoid the most dangerous consequences of climate change and limit total global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius, we can only afford to burn between a third and a half of all the remaining coal, oil and gas reserves, between now and eternity (well, the next million years or so).

By the way, 2°C of warming is still bad, will require strong adaptive measures within our society and will still likely result in a whole lot of species extinctions and significant sea level rise.

Even worse, to have a decent (greater than three out of four) chance of avoiding 2°C warming, we must not emit more than 700 billion tonnes of CO2 between now and the year 2050. Yet, at our current yearly rate, we’ll have exceeded that number in just 20 years.

It turns out that if humanity can really get its act together an have global greenhouse gas emissions peak by 2015 and then decline at 4 per cent each and every year thereafter, then we have a reasonable shot at staying within 2°C. Under such a scenario, global emissions will have dropped by about 60 per cent by 2050 which is almost spot on the current Australian target.

But there’s a catch. It means the global average, for each man, woman and child, will be about one and half a tonnes of CO2 per year, because the United Nations expects the human population size to have increased to over 9 billion people by 2050.

Remember what Australia’s per capita emissions were in 2000? They were 25 tonnes each. So to meet a global target of a 60 per cent reduction by 2050, we’ll have to cut back by a whopping 94 per cent.

This, of course, presumes that a global climate agreement emerges from the principle of shared and differentiated responsibility, often called a “contraction-and-convergence” (C&C) approach. Although I acknowledge that a C&C agreement is highly unlikely in its purest form, I still suspect that if we are to achieve effective global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, it will be on the basis of some agreement that is closer to C&C than anything resembling a full retention of historical advantages – which is what the current Australian policy implicitly assumes.

The bottom line: Australia’s target of 60 per cent reduction by 2050 is not supportable on the basis of climate science, and should be rejected. Current policy will break the world’s carbon budget.

A reduction of around 95 per cent by 2050 implies a near total decarbonisation of our electricity, construction, manufacturing and commercial sectors and transportation system, and a huge reduction in our agricultural sector.

I’ve no illusions about how tough this will be to achieve. But even so, let’s at least be completely honest about facing up to both the greenhouse targets required, if we are going to get really serious about the means required to achieve them.

The photo in this post is by Daniel Alonso and used under a Creative Commons Attribution Only license.

Most commented

9 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Polygirl says:

      07:27am | 05/06/09

      To Barry Brook

      I would suggest you read the following document as a start. This document is in answer to the IPCC’s document.

      http://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC_final.pdf

      Until research papers that have been conducted in a similar fashion as to medicine using “double blind studies”, I will remain highly skeptical of any article, even peer reviewed articles, why? Because of the constant, he said, she said, they said, we said. In addition to statements like, you are being paid by, an individual, corporation, even government body’s, so you must be beholden to your masters.

      I leave it up to other readers to make their own judgment on what is really happening with our climate.

      Regards
      Polygirl

    • MarcH says:

      07:40am | 05/06/09

      Like a lot of alarmist nonsense this piece by Barry is an over inflated balloon in need of a sharp pin.

      http://www.nipccreport.org/  provides that sharp pin.

    • Dan Cass says:

      08:29am | 05/06/09

      Good article Barry.

      Skeptics - you are the fringe of the fringe!

    • ian sand says:

      09:00am | 05/06/09

      Can polygirl explain where we will get another Earth or 20 on which to conduct her “double blind studies”?

      The problem is that it is impossible to find that necessary part of any scientific experiment - a control.  Where the laboratory is a whole planet there is nothing against which to compare it.  So no sane scientist will be able to prove to anything like usual scientific standards that anthropic global warming exists.  Cynical naysayers will exploit that fact to entrap the gullible.

      I have no idea whether anthropic global warming is occurring.  However, the downside to ignoring the possibility is somewhat alarming.  The downside to doing something about emissions is ... ummmm ... I can’t think of one.  The upside is more efficient industry and transport, a cleaner environment and the perpetuation (beyond the economic exhaustion of fossil fuels) of our energy hungry lifestyle.  The choice, to my mind, is obvious.

    • Andy from KIRRA says:

      02:43pm | 05/06/09

      Climate change has been happening for BILLIONS of YEARS and the contribution caused by humans is small beer to the natural climate change effect. Water Vapour, position of the Sun, solar radiation, volcanism, plate tectonics etc are the real causes of our climate to change.

      Warming of the planet is a good thing too – look to the past for your proof. Civilisation flourished when it’s warmer (like now) and when it’s cold – it’s tough and harsh. CO2 is part of the building blocks of life and without it, LIFE on EARTH would have existed.

      Dan Cass should show more respect to the Skeptic’s view – or does he rather revert to Marxist ideology of controlling the language so you can control the debate like all climate change believers do. And I though radical Islam was a worry – radical environmentalism is the biggest threat to capitalism and our freedom.

    • watty says:

      02:52pm | 05/06/09

      Quelle surprise !

      Dan CXass, the man who wants” to gaol the coal giants” agrees with fellow alarmist Barry Brook who uses the “precautionary principle” to warrant his proposed cuts to Australian emissions. No proof that anything is happening but “just in case” it does.

      A modern day Paul Ehrlich whose book “The Population Bomb”  was a dud Mr Brook is predicting yet another apocalypse whilst admitting he can’t offer any proof.

    • Greg Locock says:

      10:30am | 06/06/09

      “Australia’s per captia emissions, by contrast, are about 25 tonnes, which is about the same as the US, half that of the UK, and a third that of France. ” is a complete mess, France and the UK use less CO2 per capita, not more.

      I agree the targets make no sense. The whole field is an unscientific mish-mash of hairshirt busybodydom.

    • Greg James - Seddon says:

      12:15pm | 08/06/09

      “By the way, 2 degrees C of warming is still bad ...”

      I wonder if the mediaeval settlers on Greenland thought that after being forced to abandon their settlements due to cooling 800 years ago after a 2 to 3 degree warming had allowed them to colonise that land for 500 years or so.

      The fact is Barry, that 2 degrees of warming is not bad [even if it were going to happen as a result of CO2 emissions, which it is not].  A 2 degree warming and increased atmospheric CO2 would be entirely beneficial to life on this planet.

      If anything, we should be encouraging the development, production and use of as much fossil fuels as we possibly can.

    • Aubrey Meyer says:

      09:40pm | 18/06/10

      Barry Brook is correct to make this point - halving global emissions by 2050 won’t be enough to avoid exceeding two degrees and going on to experience dangerous rates of climate change.

      The world as a whole needs to get close to zero emissions by 2050, so the rates of contraction and convergence need to accelerated - contraction for reasons of ‘urgency’ and convergence, relative to that, for reasons of ‘equity’.

      Here is a Presentation/animation: An assessment of ‘Contraction & Concentrations’ and ‘Contraction & Convergence’ and the C&C targets and modelling behind various rates of ‘sink-efficiency’ in the UK Government’s ‘Climate Act’ [2008]: -
      http://www.gci.org.uk/animations/Sources_and_Sinks_UK_Climate_Act.swf

      The ‘50:50’ odds the UK Government gave for avoiding a temperature rise
      globally of more than two degrees with their emissions scenario are examined in this context. They are based on assumptions about increasing ‘sink-efficiency’ that are not supported by the evidence.

      The letter dated 8th June 2010 from eminent persons [including Australians] sent to the UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change about these matters is here: -

      http://www.gci.org.uk/politics.html

      Regardless of where you live, please support this letter if you agree with the message.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Lucy Kippist

RT @HeatherSmithAU: Can living in another country change your life for the better? by @lucyjk on @newscomau f. moi http://t.co/E5Ma3kBut2

David Penberthy

@mooks83 sophisticated response. Think the kids parents saw it differently

David Penberthy

More class from 9's footy show, lampooning a baby that allegedly looks like Sterlo with a pic swiped from Facebook http://t.co/BGoYP6Pn68

Lucy Kippist

A story that's close to my heart - can living overseas change your life for the better? With thanks, @Alisa_reduxhttp://t.co/n6tksJstqs

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter