The battle lines on Australia’s climate targets for 2035 have been sharply drawn. The Climate Change Authority has already advised that a 75 percent emissions reduction at least is needed to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees. Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen welcomed the Business Council of Australia’s (BCA) newly-found interest in joining discussions. He highlighted the need for cooperation between the business community and environmentalists. There are severe divergences that have developed in the aims outlined by the BCA and many active climate advocacy orgs.
The BCA contends that while increasing emissions reduction targets is necessary, it must be accompanied by robust policy frameworks and substantial investments. Climate groups, including a former leader of the Greens, make that claim very forcefully. They argue that any target lower than 71 percent would represent a major backtrack on Australia’s environmental obligations. This discord highlights the real difficulty in trying to thread the needle between adverse economic impacts and trying to do something meaningful on climate.
Even as the federal government is set to announce its own target, it’s unclear if it’ll actually legislate these ambitions. The purpose of government is to test the achievability of its ostensible target in parliament immediately following the announcement. This new bit of red tape adds another layer of complexity to an already contentious issue.
The Business Council’s Perspective
The BCA has been clear that going above a 70 percent target would invite dire economic consequences. Their modelling shows if Australia increased its emissions reduction target from 50 to 60 percent it would need to train 59,000 more workers in the next five years. By 2050, they project that this number will increase to nearly 82,000. Additionally, if we were to aim for a 70 percent or higher target, that would take an investment of roughly $200 billion.
Bran Black, chief executive of the BCA, warned against lofty goals with no policy action to back them up. He stated, “What that would mean is that we’d have a smaller economy, but there would be no net benefit to global emissions because the companies that acquire our commodities would simply acquire them from somewhere else.” Black emphasized the need to back up targets with good policy to make them ambitious, but not impossible.
Black said it will be critical to speed up the installation of new large-scale renewable energy infrastructure, like wind and solar farms. He urged a greater focus on expanding electricity transmission infrastructure and shifting away from coal dependence. He called the responses to the crisis urgently inadequate on all of these fronts. Not doing so risks unjustified climate change that will cost the Australian economy more than $3.4 trillion over the next half century.
Climate Groups Demand Stronger Action
Climate advocacy organizations such as Future Super maintain that Australia should be more ambitious. Greens Party Larissa Waters, leader of the opposition, is determined that the federal government targets at least 71 percent. She contends that anything less would be a gross failure of intent. She said, “All of the states’ and territories’ commitments take us to a 71 percent reduction already. If the federal government comes out with a number less than 71, it’s an unmistakable sign that they’re going to do nothing. Rather, they would opt to rely on the states and territories to address the needs.
In her opening remarks, Waters called for clarity and transparency in the administration’s or Congress’ proposals. She asked if they will go with an ambitious, legally-binding target that drives a strong economy through clean energy investments or a weaker target to placate fossil fuel interests. “We have to see what target they are proposing first — is it going to be a strong target that will keep us safe and really lead us into a prosperous economy with all of the investment and clean energy and manufacturing that that could bring,” she said.
Climate Council CEO Amanda McKenzie supported these sentiments, calling for legislative support for targets. It’s incredibly important when you are committed to a policy to codify it into statute. It provides predictability, it gives certainty for investors, it provides transparency and accountability,” she asserted. Beyond that, McKenzie emphasized the need for an ambitious yet credible target. In fact, it needs to be in the 75 percent range to adhere to scientific recommendations.
Government’s Legislative Dilemma
As negotiations continue, the federal government is being squeezed from all sides of the debate. Bowen himself has promised that the next target will strike a careful balance between greater ambition and realistic delivery and implementation. He characterized it as ambitious but achievable, with the goal of giving the public clear, accessible information on what is required to make impactful climate action.
There is still doubts about whether the administration will follow through with requiring legislation requiring adherence to the suggested targets. The mixed reactions suggest that achieving consensus will require navigating complex political landscapes and addressing economic concerns raised by business leaders.
The BCA recently cautioned that overly ambitious targets risk a loss in export value of $100 billion to $150 billion per year. Yet, this shocking number adds urgency to our discussions. They instead argue that firms might shift their production to nations with weaker climate restrictions. This could occur if Australia commits to targets that are too ambitious without adequate means to support them.
