Inconvenient truth on emissions

Angus Taylor’s pragmatic assessment of the global climate change challenge provides a welcome contrast to the shrill catastrophisation that dominates much of the public debate. Fresh from climate talks in Madrid, Mr Taylor, writing in The Australian on Tuesday, contrasted Australia’s efforts with those of comparable countries. He also provided a bleak snapshot of the prospects of a top-down approach favoured by advocates of radical climate change policy, including The Guardian and the publicly funded ABC.

Mr Taylor’s figures showed Australia has achieved more than progressive favourites such as New Zealand and Canada, which talk tough on climate action but which did not sign up for the two Kyoto processes on which Australia has over-achieved. Labor’s criticism is that Australia’s figures are worse if carry-over permits are not used, contrary to government policy. As Mr Taylor wrote, since 2005 Australia’s emissions, which account for 1.3 per cent of the global total, have fallen by 12.9 per cent compared with a 2 per cent fall in Canada and a rise of 4 per cent in New Zealand.

In recent weeks New Zealand has been lauded for announcing tough new standards to be net carbon neutral by 2050. But the inconvenient detail is that this target excludes biogenic methane emitted by plant and animal sources. In a country blessed with abundant sources of hydro and geothermal energy, agriculture is New Zealand’s largest source of emissions, which are effectively exempt. Meanwhile, major polluting nations such as China and India continue to increase coal-fired power production and emissions, unchecked. Since 2005 China’s emissions have risen by 67 per cent and India’s by 77 per cent. That has not stopped London newspaper The Financial Times criticising Australia in a befuddled pre-Christmas editorial about the bushfires impacting the nation’s east coast. The FT has accused Australia of promoting global inaction on climate change and Prime Minister Scott Morrison of a lack of leadership on the issue.

The outcome of the Madrid meeting demonstrated that the internationalist agenda on climate action has bigger problems than Australia. The Australian agrees with Mr Taylor’s major point that least-cost abatement through technological innovation is the correct approach. Lecturing sovereign nations without offering solutions is bound to fail. Mr Taylor highlighted some positives, including carbon capture, biofuels and, potentially, hydrogen. But proven technologies should not be surrendered too lightly.

This week, BP’s retiring chief executive, Bob Dudley, raised the flag pointing out that natural gas would remain an essential bridge between fossil fuels and renewables for decades to come. That is a lesson state governments in Victoria and NSW, which profess a desire for climate action but block gas developments, would be wise to learn.