The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has released its third report in its sixth assessment series on the status of climate change science, impacts and mitigation. It found that even if all policies announced by governments across the world were fully implemented, the earth would still warmer by 3.2℃ degrees by 2100.
The science suggests warming to this extent would see unprecedented weather events and water shortages causing devastation. In some of the strongest wording used to date, UN Secretary-General António Guterres said: “Some government and business leaders are saying one thing but doing another. Simply put, they are lying. And the results will be catastrophic.”
These findings add to the mounting evidence the IPCC has compiled over the past three decades, and the urgency grows with the release of each report. But what is Australia’s record of responding to climate science? Crikey looks back on its response to successive reports.
First assessment report
The newly established IPCC released its first assessment report in 1990. It confirmed that the natural greenhouse effect was warming the earth, and human activities were contributing to the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases. It also endorsed the “Toronto targets”, which aimed for a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2005 at 1988 levels.
After initially rejecting the target, Australia signed up to the 20% reduction goal in 1990, and named it an “interim planning target”. The commitment was heavily caveated by the “no regrets” strategy that requires that any action taken would not be at the expense of the economy.
As a result of the first report, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) became the first climate treaty, which Australia ratified in 1992.
Second assessment report
In December 1995 the IPCC released its second report, which found “a discernible human influence on global climate”. The newly elected Howard government committed to the UNFCC’s “activities implemented jointly” project, in which nations cooperate on emissions reduction projects. Then environment minister Robert Hill explained that “in the long term [Australia] would be seeking credit from the international community for our efforts”.
Ahead of the Kyoto climate summit in 1997, Hill said: “The adoption of a uniform reduction target at the upcoming Kyoto conference would have a devastating impact on Australian industry and its ability to create jobs.” Australia signed but did not ratify the Kyoto agreement, making the commitment legally non-binding.
Third assessment report
The next IPCC report, in 2001, established the growing scientific evidence of global temperature increase across the 20th century. The report predicted temperatures will increase by 1.4-5.8 degrees across the 21st century.
Australia legislated conservative renewable energy targets, but the government rejected criticisms of its climate policy in a report tabled by the Senate standing committee on the environment. The report is titled “The Heat is On: Australia’s Greenhouse Future” and makes more than 100 recommendations.
Australia continues to refuse to sign the Kyoto Protocol.
Fourth assessment report
In early 2007, the newest IPCC report affirmed that increases in global temperature were driven by anthropogenic greenhouse gases — with 90% certainty. At the same time, Australia’s climate policy was focused on a potential emissions trading scheme. Despite tabling the proposal years earlier, the Howard government makes an election promise to introduce an emissions trading scheme.
The newly elected Rudd government ratified the Kyoto Protocol. The 2009-10 budget included significant climate policy, with new targets and a carbon pollution reduction scheme (CPRS). The legislation of the CPRS failed to pass the Senate, while carbon pricing was eventually implemented.
Fifth assessment report
The IPCC released its biggest report yet, published in multiple stages across 2013-14. It continued to crystallise the risk climate change posed to human health, national security and agriculture, and further evidence of human impact on climate change.
The newly elected Abbott government wound back much of the existing climate policy, and after multiple attempts, carbon pricing mechanisms were repealed. Australia became the first country to reverse policy designed to take action on climate change. In the following years, climate policy continued to be a highly politicised issue, with limited action taken at the federal level.
Sixth assessment report
The IPCC’s most comprehensive report on climate change is released across 2021 and 2022, with the final part released yesterday detailing what mitigation is possible. It describes the chances of mitigation as a “now or never” situation, with the original goal of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees essentially impossible.
Australia has committed to net zero emissions by 2050, but the more aggressive targets the IPCC reports demand are lacking.
In the first government response to the latest report, Assistant Energy Minister Tim Wilson told RN Breakfast today that the government was exceeding its interim target of 26-28% emissions reductions by 2030, and diverted attention to other countries who Wilson claimed need “to follow our lead”. He pointed to the UK that is “backsliding on their commitments” and China who “hasn’t even committed to net zero”.
This comes after the Coalition government’s 2021-22 budget was criticised for failing to take further action on climate change.
Anyone who thinks there is any chance whatsoever of the Liberal Party doing anything other than continuing and, if possible, expanding the use of fossil fuel both here and abroad should watch this:
(2) Coal will be around for ‘decades to come’: Scott Morrison – YouTube
In this short clip, Morrison states explicitly that:
And, this clip was filmed just LAST MONTH!
There is no hope with this lot. None at all.
The only way to save this planet is to vote these bastards out.
The Invisible Man claimed in late 2020 that he would be touring the country delivering ‘headland speeches‘ – wotevs. those might be.
He only gave one in which he promised that there was a strong future for coal mining jobs and ‘Labor’ would ensure that they were high paying.
Wisely, he shut up after that.
. . . . and vote these bastards out!
And Crikey opens today with the gleeful assertion that government receipts are up because of the insane price increases in filthy fossil fuels. Talk about connectedness. IPCC says no new fossil fuel projects now and wind up that poison by 2030. On the other hand we have a criminal government using that bonanza to distribute trinket to the masses at huge expense and with no objective of enduring social benefit. I don’t care how bland Also allegedly is, this bunch of crooks must be banished with a humiliating defeat of we are doomed.
The cruellest aspect of the politics around climate change is that the humans who will be impacted most are not yet eligible to vote. At best they publicly protest – only to be chided by ageing conservative MPs that they’re missing important class time.
“The cruelest aspect of the politics around climate change is that the humans who will be impacted most are not yet eligible to vote.”
Or even born!
“Or even born!”
Amen to that. If we cannot muster our consciences, we had better muster our excuses. Because we certainly will be judged for what we are failing to do.
“Profits precede plebs and providence”.
only to be chided by ageing conservative MPs that they’re missing important class time.
And now, in NSW under new legislation rushed through last week, they may be sentenced to jail terms for what might accurately termed civil disobedience.
Perhaps there’s a loophole if their disobedience is uncivil.
And now in NSW unless its classified as industrial action, any demonstration on road, bridge or public place is punishable by heavy fines and potentially jail time. Legislation passes last week.
I wonder what Minister ‘chattering classes’ Fletcher has had to say about this?
That scientists are now part of the climate cult?
There’s a number of fundamental issues with climate action:
1. Lifestyle change maxes out at 15% or so of emission reduction – only government / industry can make the changes needed for effective change.
2. There is no real international cooperation – at best states are jockeying for advantage, at worst sabotaging cooperation and action (eg Oz and Republican USA)
3. There is no clear vision anywhere of what a carbon zero world would look like – at best we get “green new deals” at worst “everything exactly the same, but green” marketing bullsh*t. Invariably these plans exist in a single western country.
4. Growth is an issue but is ignored – it is not possible to double activity every 7 years and cut emissions.
5. Population and Development is an issue but is ignored – even if absurdly profligate resource users such as the USA and their factory state China are made carbon neutral develoent of non western countries to any degree will raise emissions.
6. Destruction of carbon sinks in the third world is an issue but is being ignored – clearing of forests in Brazil, Borneo and elsewhere in SE Asia is not slowing.
7. There is no green alternative to concrete or steel anywhere on the horizon. Ditto for sea freight.
The sheer scale of the problem and the scale of the coordinated changes required to solve it are depressing. There is no win-win solution.
Reading various scientific climate reports, all I understand is the world has reached the tipping point. Not able to be remedied.
I also believe most humans cannot comprehend the magnitude of the future disasters – therefore just live and continue to do as usual.
I also doubt localised actions will be enough to change the end of the world as we know it. Scomo and his followers talk of 2050 as some lodestone – I think 2030 may be an earlier crisis worldwide due to geographical catastrophes that will surely impinge on our “safe and comfortable” lifestyles.
That’s my reality.
That the tipping point has passed has not been in doubt since the permafrost – in Siberia & Canada – began thawing in the 90s.
The methane released by this process is far more deleterious as a greenhouse gas, though shorter lived, than CO2 and rising exponentially.
The amount of CO2 already in the atmosphere will not begin to lessen for at least 20-40yrs, if all combustion ceased tomorrow.
The best that we can do is adapt.
The chances of that being done equitably are lower than the oft quoted Buckley’s & none.
There has never been a better time to be old, well shuffled off this mortal coil before the excrement interfaces with the air movement devices.
I’m old but my grand child is only 10 months…
2030 the undeniable reality. And, 2035 . . . . close the doors and ponder. Why me?