Coalition MPs say Australia’s emissions are a fraction of the world’s total. What kind of argument is that? | Graham Readfearn
WThe hat Do you think you are coming if you decide that, because the amount of the tax you owe to the government was only a barely perceptible percentage of global tax revenues, you did not go and take the trouble to pay?
Aside from the ATO that makes fun of you before sending you an invoice, your friends would probably call you a freeloader, telling you that everyone has to do their part.
This brings us (not honestly, this is the case) to the way certain members of the coalition have argued on the climate crisis in recent weeks, and if Australia should take the trouble to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to Net Zero.
The liberal support of a zero net climate target is being examined, but the deputy by Frontbench, Andrew Hastie, joined other personalities of the coalition, including the nationals Barnaby Joyce and Matt Canavan, by calling for Australia to abandon the objective.
Register: at the Breaking News Email
During these arguments, the Conservatives said that Australia’s emissions are just a small percentage of the world total.
The conclusion they want the Australians to reach are clear – if the emissions from our country are so small, why bother?
“Net Zero is devastating for our economy and will have absolutely no effect on the climate,” said Joyce this week. “It has no effect on the climate.”
Hastie underlined the disproportionate emissions from China, alongside the United States and India, the contrasting with the “1.1%” of Australia in world emissions.
“It was called the drop argument in the bucket,” said Professor Brendan Mackey, director of the Griffith Action Action Beacon at Griffith University.
“But the argument is deeply defective for a number of reasons.”
‘Deeply imperfect’
It is true that Australia’s emissions represent only 1.1% of the world total, according to data maintained by the European Commission. China emissions are 29.2%.
But what happens if you extend this argument of “falling bucket” to all countries whose global contribution to greenhouse gas emissions is smaller than that of Australia?
It would be more than 190 countries and territories that suddenly stop trying to reduce their emissions. Should they all be able to abandon their climatic objectives too, and what would be the effect of this?
If you create a group with Australia at the top and include each country with emissions lower than ours, all these countries contribute 28.4% of global emissions.
“To limit global warming to any level, we have to go to Net Zero. All programs really count, ”explains MacKey.
“Each increase in global warming leads to more loss and damage caused by climatic impacts, so that all emissions count.
“It is scientifically false to say that half a billion tonnes (roughly the annual emissions of Australia) of the CO2 Never mind. They do it materially.
In addition, although the raw emissions from Australia are relatively low, the country’s per capita emissions are among the highest on the planet and almost double in China.
International agreements
When the Conservatives argue that Australia’s emissions do not matter because it is only 1% of global emissions, what they rarely say, this is what it means for the international climatic agreements to which Australia has signed.
Under the Paris climate agreement, countries must offer their own commitments – known as a national determined contribution – which collectively reach a global objective of maintaining global heating “well below 2c” and aiming 1.5c.
Currently, these commitments will probably lead to a global heating of around 2.7 ° C. But the agreement requires countries to continuously improve their objectives every five years.
“Everyone does an NDC, no matter the size,” said Mackey. “He needs collaboration from all countries. If you do not do NDC and if it does not increase in ambition, you essentially withdraw from the Paris Agreement.
“Because Australia is so exposed to climate risks, it is in our interest to ensure that the Paris agreement works and that global warming is capped.”
Roanna McClelland, Research Research on the Laureat program in Melbourne Law School on global business climate responsibility, said that a recent legal opinion from the International Court of Justice has increased the legal obligations of countries, including Australia, to limit emissions under the United Nations climate agreements.
“Whatever the opinions on the individual contribution of Australia [to global emissions] We went to the Paris International Agreement with a commitment to reach the 1.5C objective, which the ICJ has now affirmed as a legal standard. »»
In other words, Australia has signed up for a collective effort on global warming. If the conservatives want Australia to move it away from it, they should (as Canavan did) say it.
Not the case, Hastie
In an interview on Sky News this week, Joyce rocked a list of countries and regions which, according to him, were “not” on global efforts to reduce emissions.
“India is not in Indonesia is not in South America, Africa, Southeast Asia, none of them is there,” said Joyce.
All these countries – and the countries that make up these regions – have all made commitments under the Paris Agreement.
In a radio interview, Hastie said the emissions increased in China, India, South Korea, the United States and Japan.
The emissions are increasing in China and India, but China said it wanted to see its programs culminate before 2030 and reach Net Zero by 2060. India wants to reach Net Zero by 2070.
Japan emissions have been decreasing since 2013 and South Korea has been declining since 2018.
In the United States, emissions have also dropped in recent years, although a second term of Donald Trump – who called climate change a “hoax” – could change all of this.
