The Australian Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, recently said “..to suggest that at just 1.3% of emissions, that Australia doing something more or less would change the fire outcome this season – I don’t think that stands up to any credible scientific evidence at all.”
We’ll examine that statement in a moment.
But first, we should recognise that Australia is the developed country that is the most fragile and vulnerable to damage by climate change. Why? Because Australia is the oldest and driest continent. Its age brings with it low soil productivity, hence sensitivity of crops and vegetation to changes. The driest means that it is subject to long dry periods – droughts, and water is already limiting in many parts of the country. Add to that the increasing demands of us humans, and we have a delicate balance. The catastrophic bushfires of 2019/20 reminds all Australians of the vulnerability of our country to climate change.
We also know that to keep human-induced climate change within manageable limits requires a significant reduction in global greenhouse emissions, and soon. The accompanying graph shows that the global trajectory on emissions is not heading in the right direction. Something needs to change or, like the canary in the literal coalmine, Australia will feel its effects ahead of other developed countries.
So even if Australia reduces its greenhouse emissions to zero, that’s only a 1.3% reduction in emissions. How will that help? Scott Morrison is right. It won’t. Not by itself. Which is why only effective global action can solve the climate change problem for Australia. That is Australia’s dilemma. It is utterly reliant on the rest of the world to reduce emissions in order to limit the risk to this fragile continent.
It follows that it is in Australia’s long term interest to do whatever it can to influence and promote rapid and significant cuts in global emissions.
So why isn’t Australia dramatically reducing its own emissions to show leadership, influencing others to do the same, and demonstrating to the wider world what can be done? Why have successive governments baulked at taking action? Why are Australia’s forecast emissions, as shown in this graph, virtually flat-lining for the next ten years?
Simon Holmes à Court asked the same question in his recent piece in the Guardian. He says the Australian Government led by Prime Minister Morrison “is paralysed, unable to acknowledge that fossil fuel emissions are changing the climate, and that the changing climate is hurting Australians.”
He also raises the moral arguments against the ‘too small to matter’ line. If all small taxpayers took this attitude and didn’t pay tax…government revenue would take a significant hit. One single vote in an election isn’t a big deal…until they are all collected together. And the Government seems to use the opposite argument when claiming that Australia’s small (1.8%) contribution to the military forces in Afghanistan is essential for security of the region and the world.
Deep cuts in emissions needn’t be ‘economy-wrecking’. In fact the opposite can be true as described by noted economist Ross Garnaut in his recent book Superpower. He says the opportunities for Australia in transformation are significant and exciting. “No other developed country has a comparable opportunity for large-scale, firm, zero-emissions power, supplied at low cost.”
Holmes à Court concludes “Until his government stands up to the vested interests and starts telling the truth, Morrison’s authority will shrink ever smaller – as will Australia’s position in the world and our nation’s future prospects.”
While some of the key decision-makers and stakeholders seem to be beholden to their worlds of status and financial self-interest, our collective grandchildren are free from these encumbrances. Led by Greta Thunberg, who famously said ‘no one is too small to make a difference’, they have already made up their minds. They demand that we reduce emissions dramatically and fast. And they want more adults to join them.
Photo credit: NSW RFS via Adam Stevenson
