The CTU considers australia`s current target under the Paris Agreement to be “insufficient” because it is not strict enough to limit warming to 2 degrees Celsius, let alone 1.5 degrees Celsius. It turns out that the United States still far outstrips Australia over the 30-year period until 2020 (see chart below). While Australia, as part of its 5% target, is likely to reduce its per capita emissions by 12% from 1990 by 2020, the United States will do so by 28%, more than double (below the 17%) target. Conclusion: Australia`s 2020 target is lower than the current US 2020 target and a much stronger target will be needed to reach the United States after 2020. “Frank Jotzo” The Australian market is a little behind, from where we are now. If they want to take action against climate change, they would accept the advice of scientists, the international community, experts, industry and the economy who have called for a zero net emissions target by 2050. Having a goal would frame political decisions and give investors confidence. Taylor said Australia`s next commitment, including a target for 2035 or 2040, would not be due until 2025. An important part of this comparison is the impact of deforestation emissions. This factor was not taken into account in Table 3.1 of the International Climate Action Research Paper (page 21), which is probably the basis of ministerial statements.
A comparison with apples shows that Australia is far behind the United States in its efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from its energy, transportation and industry sectors. On the other hand, Australia`s emissions can remain roughly constant – 30% more than in 1990 – and reach the target of 5% in 2020 below the baseline year of the Kyoto Protocol in 2000. He said this does not take into account Australia`s “over-performance of previous targets” – a reference to the government`s controversial plan to count the issuance credits of another climate agreement against the Paris target – or political cuts under development, including a promised strategy for electric vehicles. The government has appointed major players in fossil fuels and the mining industry to its national advisory board of the COVID 19 commission, including a member of Aramco`s Saudi board of directors. It is not surprising that the Commission supports a gas-based recovery, which recommends the government to finance pipelines, and increases both the national gas supply and subsidies for gas-fired electricity generation. The government has ignored the chances of a green recovery, particularly an accelerated transition to renewable energy. The Commonwealth government has pledged AUD 213.6 billion to respond to the economic consequences of the pandemic by directing funds to welfare recipients and allocating wage subsidies to businesses. The stimulus funds are not aimed at a green recovery. On the other hand, the local reality is very different at the level of the state, public opinion, economic sectors and research organizations.
All states (in addition to the Northern Territory and the ACT) now have ambitious or statutory zero emission targets, and some have strong renewable energy targets and hydrogen strategies for renewable energy. Recent studies show the great benefits of employment, the economic recovery opportunities offered by the creation of new jobs as part of the transition to renewable energy. Other data collected in January 2020 show that more than half of Australians believe the nation is doing better in the long run if it meets the Paris agreement goals, indicating that many see long-term benefits in participating in international efforts to reduce emissions.