After much anticipation, Labor has finally revealed how a government it would lead would aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions if elected next year.
It’s committed to a 43 per cent reduction by 2030, exceeding the Coalition’s official target for a 26-28 per cent cut on 2005 emissions levels by 2030.
Significantly, Labor is also seeking to adjust the government’s so-called ‘Safeguard Mechanism’ to make heavy emitters pay for their emissions, by gradually reducing, over time, the eligibility threshold from 100,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year. The Business Council has proposed it be lowered to 25,000 tonnes - and Labor says it will adopt this recommendation.
The opposition also wants to make the public service carbon-neutral by 2030, with the exception of law enforcement and security agencies.
How does Labor’s target compare with other countries?
The 43 per cent target by 2030 gets us in line with some peers - Canada is aiming for 40-45 per cent, South Korea at 40 per cent and Japan at 46 per cent.
But it’s short of the United States’ ambitions of a 50-52 per cent emissions reduction goal, New Zealand’s 50 per cent, and Britain’s plan to reduce emissions by at least 68 per cent compared to 1990 levels by the end of the decade.
Does it go far enough?
First off, Australia is already on track to achieve a 35 per cent reduction by 2030 without any government action, mainly because of the uptake in renewables - largely solar energy.
Secondly, even the Business Council of Australia, whose advice Labor has relied on for much of its policy, has called for a bigger 50 per cent reduction. That's the same Council that in 2018 said Labor's previous policy of a 45 per cent cut would be "economy wrecking".
Third, and most importantly, the science: experts say while Labor’s target is a good first step, it still falls well short of what the science says is required.
And that’s a much more ambitious target of 75 per cent, if Australia wants to do its share of reaching the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees, says Griffith University research fellow Wesley Morgan, citing analysis from the Climate Targets Panel.
“Limiting warming to well below 2 degrees this century would require a 50 per cent emissions reduction in the same time frame,” Mr Morgan writes in The Conversation.
Professor Steven Sherwood, Deputy Director of the UNSW Climate Change Research Centre said Labor’s target was a step in the right direction but not the ideal target.
“The more you cut, the better, and you just have to get started,” he told SBS News.
“The most important thing is that you really have to start reducing now. And I think there's a lot of discussion about this percentage reduction and that percentage reduction, and a lot of it is not that meaningful. I think what's really important is to start doing stuff right now.
“My hope is that what is politically achievable will shift relatively quickly. And we'll be able to get to stronger targets later.”
How have business and climate groups reacted?
The Climate Council says if Australia wants to achieve net-zero by 2050, then Labor’s 2030 target will help achieve that. But it wants Australia to be much more ambitious and cut its emissions by 75 per cent and reach net zero by 2035.
“Labor's plan is a major improvement, but it will need to be strengthened significantly to genuinely tackle climate change,” Climate Council CEO Amanda McKenzie said in a statement.
Greenpeace was much more scathing, calling Labor’s policy “weak” and “out of touch” with Australians’ calls for stronger climate action.
“The test for Labor is not whether they can promise something a bit better than one of the worst performing governments on climate action in the world,” Kate Smolski, Program Director for Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said.
“The test for Labor is whether they can meet the urgent need to secure the future of the Australian nation and act fast to reduce the sources of pollution that are driving global warming.”
Australian Conservation Foundation estimated Labor’s plan would cut pollution by 100 million tonnes, about the same as removing 20 million cars off the road. But it too said the target should be stronger.
Given that Labor’s policy adopts much of the recommendations of business, it’s no surprise then that business is largely applauding the opposition’s plan.
The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said the policy was “encouraging” to see given its updated 2030 targets, and would allow industry to remain internationally competitive.
Leader of the Opposition Anthony Albanese after driving a Hyundai Nexo hydrogen powered vehicle past Parliament House in Canberra, December 1, 2021 Source: AAP
National employer association The Australian Industry Group said sooner or later industries expected that baselines under the safeguard mechanism would be driven down anyway.
And it’s better than leaving future generations to deal with the issue, said the association's CEO Innes Willox.
"The nature of carbon budgets means that if emissions merely glide down now they would need to power-dive later,” he said.
“By lifting our 2030 ambitions we reduce the burden of adjustment that we leave to post baby-boomer generations.”
What has the government said?
You won't be surprised to learn that the government has criticised Labor's policy, with Prime Minister Scott Morrison ridiculing Labor leader Anthony Albanese for delivering a target two percentage points lower than what he previously has said wasn't a good plan.
"Anthony Albanese had previously said that 45 per cent was a mistake. He's now saying 43 per cent is okay," Mr Morrison said.
"A 43 per cent target isn't safe for the Hunter. It's not safe for Gladstone. It's not safe for Bell Bay. It's not safe for our manufacturers. It's not safe for jobs."
For its part, Labor said its modelling showed its policy would create 600,000 jobs, mostly in the regions, and cut power bills for families and businesses by $275 a year by 2025, compared with today.
