Australia’s new climate target revealed, nation reacts
One of Australia’s mining billionaires has slammed Anthony Albanese’s new climate change target in a scathing critique.
One of Australia’s richest men has slammed Anthony Albanese’s new climate change target for not going far enough.
Iron ore magnate Andrew Forrest, who signed an open letter demanding the Albanese government commit to at least a 75 per cent emissions reduction target by 2035, says the new target wasn’t ambitious.
“The duty now falls to industry to make this target not the ceiling of our ambition, but the floor upon which Australia’s climate leadership is built. Every delay means higher climate damages, lost opportunities and a weaker economy,” he said.
“A 62 per cent to 70 per cent range is a step forward, but it sends a signal that we are comfortable with the status quo. Australia is capable of much more and the world is watching.
“Australia has the opportunity to lead the green industrial revolution. But to seize that future, we must set ambitions that match our potential.”
Greens leader Larissa Waters said the “utter failure” will be welcomed by polluters.
“Despite science saying net zero by 2035 will protect people and the planet, and climate and investor groups urging a target of at least 75 per cent, Labor will only aim for a 62-70 per cent reduction,” a statement read.
“Coal and gas corporations will love this utter failure of a target,” Senator Waters said.
“Labor has sold out to coal and gas corporations with this utter failure of a target.
“Labor is the worst type of climate hypocrite: they claim to care and then approve more coal and gas projects.”
Electricity prices could tumble
Electricity prices could tumble by $1,000 a year for households over the next decade as renewables are rolled out according to expert advice underpinning the Prime Minister’s new climate change target — to slash greenhouse gas emissions by up to 70 per cent by 2035.
But a cautious Prime Minister has refused to back the dollar figure himself after getting stung by price predictions in the past.
“What we know is if we do not act, [there] will be a cost of the economy as the treasurer has outlined. [That] will be lower wages, lower growth, less jobs,” Mr Albanese said.
“We know that it is in Australia’s interest to have an orderly transition, that is what we intend to do,” he said.
The bold prediction on power bills is contained in the Climate Change Authority’s 2035 target advice.
“Expert analysis by the Australian Energy Market Commission projects residential electricity prices will fall by 13 per cent (about 5c/kWh) and average household energy costs will fall by about 20 per cent (around $1,000/year) over the next decade under a coordinated renewables rollout,’’ the advice states.
“Households that fully electrify (by transitioning to electric transportation, appliances, heating, and integrating solar and battery storage) could potentially cut energy costs by as much as 70 per cent (AEMC, 2024).
“As well as saving money, the decarbonisation and growth of electricity production is a necessary precondition for the decarbonisation of other sectors.”
Albo pushes ahead with new target
Amid a bitter split in Coalition ranks over whether or not it should abandon the net zero target by 2050, the Albanese Government is forging ahead with a new mid-term target.
“Our government knows that climate change is real and we want to continue to seize the economic opportunity that the energy transition offers our nation,’’ Mr Albanese said.
“We act in the national interest of Australia and that is why we are acting on the advice of the climate change authority and today I am announcing, based on their advice, a 2035 emissions target be 62 to 70 per cent.
“This is a responsible target, backed by science, backed by a practical plan to get there and built on proven technology.
“Setting a 2035 target is a compulsory part of Australia’s commitment to the Paris agreement to keep temperatures from rising to dangerous levels.”
An ‘extra $36,000 per person wealthier’
Treasurer Jim Chalmers insisted that an orderly transition to net zero was “a golden economic opportunity for Australia” which could improve living standards.
“This is a huge economic opportunity for our country and its people and we would be mad not to grasp it,’’ Mr Chalmers said.
“The Treasury modelling qualifies the nature and magnitude of this economic opportunity and it compares that with two realistic alternatives as well.”
Mr Chalmers said Treasury had modelled a number of scenarios to stress test the best target.
“We asked the Treasury to model a 65 per cent target because we needed the time to put that modelling together and we wanted to make sure it was within the draft range that the Climate Change Authority was consulted on,’’ he said.
“So we asked them to model 65 per cent (reduction by 2035) which was obviously within the target that we are announcing today and we asked them for three scenarios.
“The baseline scenario would see our economy $2.2 trillion bigger by 2050 and an extra $36,000 per person wealthier, 5.1 million jobs and investment up 80 per cent.
“We also asked for an upside scenario which is a scenario where we make the most of the tremendous export opportunities presented by the global shift to net zero and, again, the economy would be much bigger under that scenario and there would be $68 billion more in sustainable exports as a consequence.
“We also asked the Treasury to model the disorderly transition, the alternative. If we leave the heavy lifting to others at the start of the 2040s and where our country and economy would need to scramble to hit net zero by 2050 and in the disorderly transition the economy would be a cumulatively $1.2 trillion smaller.”
Welfare group slams target
But not everyone is a fan of the new target range announced by the Albanese Government.
Welfare lobby group the Australian Council of Social Services said the 2035 emissions reduction target of 62-70 per cent was “a failure of leadership that will expose Australia’s most vulnerable communities to escalating climate risks.”
“ACOSS and the community sector called for a science-based and fair share emissions reduction target of net zero (100 per cent) by 2035, 75 per cent would have been an absolute minimum,’’ ACOSS CEO Dr Cassandra Goldie said.
“The weak target announced today by the Albanese Government falls dangerously short of what the science requires and what is possible.
“Without greater action, we will face more heatwaves, more floods, a higher cost of living, and deeper inequality.”
‘Business as usual’
Climate Analytics, a global science and policy institute delivering analysis and support to accelerate climate action said the Australian government’s new 2035 target simply did not match the level of action required to stave off many of the extreme climate change impacts.
“It is baffling that in the same week, the government could release a terrifying document warning Australian’s of a grim future if global warming continues and exceeds 1.5C, with many impacts doubling if warming gets to 2C, then turn round and agree a target that, if all others followed with similar action, would lead to at least 2C warming globally,’’ CEO and Senior Scientist Bill Hare said.
“If anything, the Climate Risk Assessment calls for stronger action, in line with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5C limit, one of the warming levels it considers along with 2C and 3C, which is close to where the government’s is heading under the policies it has in place at the moment.”
“A 1.5C compatible 2035 target would be the kind of action you expect from a developed country wanting to co-host the global climate talks next year with its vulnerable Pacific Island neighbours. That target falls well short of this: a 1.5C aligned target, according to our analysis, should be at least 76 per cent below 2005 levels.
“Without a 1.5C aligned 2035 target, there is insufficient incentive for the government to push ambitious policies. This would, ultimately, benefit a fossil fuel industry keen to keep business as usual.”
How it compares to other nations
Defying big business’ calls to keep the target as low as a 60 per cent reduction by 2035, senior government sources told news.com.au to expect a more ambitious target ahead of this morning’s cabinet meeting.
The 2035 target was widely expected to be more ambitious than Canada and New Zealand allies, but below the United Kingdom’s, which is one of the most ambitious in the world.
Some states in Australia have already moved to legislate a 2035 target, with the NSW government settling on 70 per cent, and the Queensland government aiming for an ambitious 75 per cent target.
Canada is aiming for a 45 to 50 per cent reduction in emissions and New Zealand is aiming for a 51 to 55 per cent reduction.
By comparison, the United Kingdom has opted for a highly ambitious 81 per cent target compared to levels in 1990.
Confirmation of the new target comes ahead of UN talks in New York next week, where other world leaders will also gather to confirm their 2035 targets at a meeting of the United Nations General Assembly.
The commitment follows the release of the ‘doomsday’ predictions in the National Climate Risk Assessment of rising deaths from heat-related events in coming years including floods, bushfires and cyclones.
Earlier, opposition leader Sussan Ley refused to back any new target as she grapples with a revolt in the ranks over climate change policies.
“I’m deeply sceptical about what the government may announce today with respect to these targets,’’ she said.
“And they need to demonstrate what is the cost and most particularly, relevant to your question, where’s the credibility? Because we know that the cost to consumers and households has escalated under this government. And the promises for the future therefore really don’t hold water.
“We need to make sure our energy policy delivers a stable, reliable grid that brings affordable energy for households and businesses. And yes, we do need to play our part in reducing emissions.”
When this week asked what he would do if Ms Ley supported the net-zero-by-2050 target, Liberal leadership aspirant Andrew Hastie made it plain: “That leaves me without a job.”
“I’ve nailed my colours to the mast,” he said.
“If I go out with the tide in two-and-a-half years, that’s great. I’ll get a lot more time with my kids back.”
Energy Minister Chris Bowen said the target needed to be ambitious but also practical and achievable.
“The target has to be two things. It’s not an either/or – it has to be ambitious and achievable,” Mr Bowen said on Wednesday.
“There’s no point having an ambitious target that everyone knows you can’t achieve. There’s no point having an achievable target which doesn’t push behaviour and drive investments.”
Given the policy is under review, Mr Hastie has the freedom to roam and express his opinion for now. It’s likely to prove persuasive internally.
Intriguingly, the Western Australian MP and SAS veteran accepted his views were in the minority.
“Most of my colleagues, in fact, don’t support my position. So, I’m in the minority here and I know that,” he said.
But his threat to walk if his view wasn’t Sussan Ley’s final destination was strategic. Sometimes the minority can enforce its view if its threatens to blow the show up.
This is one of those moments.
Given his status as a potential future leader, having him on the backbench – as well as Senator Jane Hume and Senator Price, effectively half the entire roster of Coalition frontbenchers that either command respect among the base or can throw on a brightly coloured jacket and string a sentence together – won’t work.
His threat to quit wasn’t idle.
He believed that the endgame for the Coalition on net zero was clear.
“It’s just got to go. It’s over. There’s just a matter of how now,’’ he said.
“Those who want to keep net zero say we need it to win elections. But how do we win if almost all our members are, and our leaders like Andrew Hastie, are against it?
“We either have a fighting chance of winning by dropping net zero, or we face certain defeat if we keep net zero.
“Some say let’s just drop the 2050 half but keep net zero as an aspiration in the future.
“That’s just half pregnant and it won’t give the clear point of difference we need to show the Australian people that we have their priorities at heart.
“I said that net zero policy is a straitjacket for our economy and our country, and I believe that.”
It didn’t take long for the clues to start dropping about where Sussan Ley was headed.
Just a few hours after Andrew Hastie did another TV interview outlining his position, she made it clear she understood where this was going.
“How does net zero fit into your economic vision and does it undermine your leadership when your Coalition colleagues come out with such a strong position on the issue?,’’ she was asked.
She replied: “We will not have net zero at any cost, because the cost can be too high.
“And right now it looks like the cost is too high when you consider what this government is about to do with its Paris targets. Let’s hold that conversation until they actually make their announcement.”
“The difference between us and the opposition is we accept the science,’’ Treasurer Jim Chalmers said.
“The Liberal Party is run now by this weird collection of cookers and crackpots, and nowhere is that more obvious than when it comes to net zero.”
Originally published as Australia’s new climate target revealed, nation reacts
Join the conversation
Mega weather warning as temps hit 50C
Read more
Hero firey died in stunning act of bravery
Read more