Carbon emissions: Tony Abbott defends climate targets which critics say don't go far enough

Updated

Prime Minister Tony Abbott says Australia's climate targets have struck the right balance between protecting the economy and the environment, but green groups believe the Government's commitment is inadequate and does not go far enough to avoid dangerous climate change.

Foreign Minister Julie Bishop will take a target of between 26 and 28 per cent to the global talks in Paris at the end of the year. The baseline for the reductions would be 2005 levels.

The Opposition and the Greens argue that would put Australia at the "back of the pack" when it comes to international action on climate change.

But Mr Abbott dismissed the attacks from Labor and the Greens over the new post-2020 emissions reduction target, saying it was "fairly in the middle of comparable economies".

"We are not leading, but we are certainly not lagging," he said.

"It's environmentally responsible because it's more than comparable with what other countries are doing.

"It's economically responsible because it doesn't depend upon a great big new tax on everything, or a massive overbuild of renewable capacity in the next few years."

Changing the base year of emissions from 2000 to 2005 makes the Government's target easier to compare to the United States and Canada.

However, 2005 was a particularly high year of emissions — the second highest since 1990, when the Kyoto Protocol began.

Labor has not revealed the post-2020 figure it would favour, but Opposition environment spokesman Mark Butler said the Government's target was not high enough.

"Countries to which we often compare ourselves — like the US and the United Kingdom, Germany, countries like that — all have targets in an equivalent timeframe into the 40 per cent range, so 41 per cent for America, 48 per cent for the UK, mid-40s for Germany," he said.

Greens environment spokeswoman Larissa Waters said Australia would be judged harshly for the policy.

"We are now one of the worst offenders compared to other developed nations," she said.

"[These are] incredibly weak climate pollution targets from an incredibly weak Prime Minister, who is in absolute denial about the science."

She said the move to a 2005 benchmark was an attempt to hide the reality of the Government's position.

"The Prime Minister is trying to artificially inflate his pathetically weak targets," she said.

"When you look at the baseline year that the Prime Minister has adopted, he's trying to squib the figures, he is changing the goal posts and using 2005 as a baseline year when almost the rest of the world is using the year 2000."

Business supports 'realistic' target

Business groups have voiced support for the Government's position, with the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry applauding the target as "realistic".

"I think it's really important that Australia sets targets that it can actually meet," said the organisation's chief executive Kate Carnell.

"Setting really high levels that are simply impossible to meet, or alternatively impact on energy prices and the competitiveness of Australian industry, is a mistake."

The Climate Institute previously argued for a much higher target to ensure Australia could meet its international commitment to keep global warming to less that 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels.

"This one is a big fail. It's a fail on climate, it's a fail on community and a fail on competitiveness," said tie Institute's chief executive John Connor.

"On these numbers we would still be the most pollution-intensive economy in the developed world in 2030."

The Climate Council, which was set up when the Abbott Government abolished the Climate Commission, also criticised the Coalition's approach.

"These targets are vastly inadequate to protect Australians from the impacts of climate change and do not represent a fair contribution to the world effort to bring climate change under control," Professor Tim Flannery said.

Notes:

The top end of Australia's target range of 26 per cent to 28 per cent has been included.

The US target is for a 26 per cent to 28 per cent reduction based on 2005 levels, however its longer-term target is for an 83 per cent reduction by 2050 based on 2005 levels. Based on this, the Climate Institute estimates the 2030 target will need to be 41 per cent based on 2005 levels.

The UK has committed to reduce emissions by at least 80 per cent in 2050 based on 1990 levels. Based on this, the Climate Institute estimates the 2030 target will need to be 48 per cent based on 2005 levels.

Topics: climate-change, environment, emissions-trading, business-economics-and-finance, government-and-politics, federal-government, australia

First posted