Agmates believes in sensibly presenting differing opinions on the issues of the day. Then our members can make their own judgments.
Syd Walker [pictured] is a committed Environment and Social Justice advocate and just a bloody good bloke.
Syd is also the Editor of his own Blog Syd Walker and he had asked me if he could publish the environmentalist point of views for the Agamtes community to digest. Syd writes (this article is also published on Syd’s site today):
*****
As our mainstream politicians and major polluting industries are apt to remind us often, Australia is only a bit player when it comes to global greenhouse emissions. We contribute a relatively small proportion of the global total, overshadowed by the USA, Europe, China and other more populous regions of the planet.
On the other hand, Australia’s per capita CO2 emissions are among the highest in the world. Australia’s ‘historical responsibility’ for the increases of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere since industrialization began is also disproportionately high.
Climate Action Network Australia issued a Position Paper called Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction for Australia in August 2008. It mounted a case for a 40% emissions reduction target for Australia by 2020.
Here’s the nub of CANA’s argument:
The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report concluded that, for 2° to 2.4°C warming scenarios, global emission reductions in the range of 50 percent to 85 percent by 2050 (compared to 2000 levels) are required (36).To keep global warming well below 2°C, the global community must aim for the upper end of this range. This was confirmed more recently by Martin Parry, Co-Chair of the Working Group II of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, who also highlighted the need for global cuts of 80% by 2050 (37).
Within the global community, the wealthy and developed Annex I countries must respond to these scientific projections with ambitious emission reduction targets. Their combined efforts must result in collective emission reductions by at least the upper end of the 25 to 40% range by 2020, based on 1990 emission levels (38).
The current international climate negotiations are at a crucial stage, where governments must agree on a comprehensive deal that will prevent dangerous climate change. This agreement will be one of the most complicated ever agreed to at an international level.
Australia is in a strong position to play a positive role in influencing these negotiations that will include an agreement on the emission reduction targets.
If Australia is to demonstrate its leadership on climate change, it must set Australian targets that contribute to maintaining global warming as far below 2°C as possible. To achieve this, the Federal Government should adopt the following emission reduction targets, with the majority of emission reductions being delivered domestically:
- 2010 peak emissions, to decline thereafter
- 2020 at least 40 % emission reductions below 1990 levels
- 2050 at least 95 % emission reductions below 1990 levels
Note that even achieving these very ambitious targets, if the IPPC is correct, will still lead to a significant increase in global temperatures (around 2 degrees centigrade by 2050).
However, it would achieve stabilization of the atmospheric. Later generations could then, if they wish, go further to reduce greenhouse gas levels back towards pre-industrial levels.
If the average global temperature increase does exceed 2 degrees centigrade, the probable consequences will be dire. Survival of human civilization in its current form becomes uncertain. The risk of catastrophic ecosystem and social collapse is high.
On Monday, Australian Prime Minister Rudd announced his government’s 2020 targets. His government has chosen the very wide – and VERY low – range of a 5% to 15% reduction based on 2000 levels.
IF the latest IPPC analysis is correct – and IF other developed countries are equally timid – it spells disaster for humanity within a couple of generations.
That’s why, to environmentalists and many scientists, yesterday’s target announcement from the Rudd Government was a tragedy and a disgrace.
There is, however, a considerable body of public opinion – within Australia and elsewhere – that rejects the IPCC’s key conclusions and believes human-induced climate change is little more than a media beat-up.
The existence of such a large body of opinion in Australia makes it:
- hard for Governments to ‘sell’ stronger emissions targets and
- easy for Governments to get away with targets that, according the mainstream IPCC view, are grossly inadequate (this week’s announcement by the Australian Government being a case in point).
Conducting constructive dialogue with the body of sceptical public opinion is an urgent priority for those of us who believe that climate change IS a serious threat that requires strong worldwide action now.
Are the sceptics right? If they’re wrong, why is it proving so hard to persuade them? Are those of us concerned about climate change using the most effective arguments to break through?
I’ve written another essay with the provisional title ‘Letter to a Climate Change Sceptic: Not Far from Consensus for Action?” I hope to publish the article simultaneously on this blog and on an Australian, rural community-oriented site.
At present, Agmates‘ editorial line is sceptical about environmentalists’ perspective on climate change and questions the need for urgent action.
I look forward to a ‘robust’ debate
My article will take a rather unusual approach to countering ‘climate change scepticism’. I hope at least some people find it persuasive.
END
Have Your say!
