Australia’s 2035 Emissions Reduction Target: A Balancing Act Between Ambition and Feasibility
As Australia prepares to unveil its emissions reduction target for 2035, the stakes are high for Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. The government’s ability to navigate the complex landscape of climate policy will be scrutinized, with the absence of public scorn serving as a key measure of success. This target is part of the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) that countries committed to under the Paris Agreement in 2015, a landmark accord aimed at combating climate change. The deadline for submitting the third NDC is fast approaching, and Australia’s position is particularly precarious given its historical reliance on fossil fuel exports.
The Context of Australia’s Climate Commitments
The Paris Agreement, which now includes 195 countries, aims to limit global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Each signatory is required to submit updated NDCs every five years, reflecting their commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Australia’s current emissions trajectory, however, raises concerns. According to the latest data, Australia emitted approximately 440 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in the year leading up to March 2023, marking a 28% reduction from 2005 levels. Yet, this progress is insufficient to meet the ambitious targets set by the Climate Change Authority (CCA), which suggests a reduction of 65-75% below 2005 levels by 2035.
The Tax-O-Metre: A New Metric for Emissions Targets
The concept of a “tax-o-metre” has emerged as a way to gauge the implications of Australia’s emissions target. Essentially, the higher the target, the more likely it is that a carbon tax will be necessary to fund the transition to a low-carbon economy. A target of 65% or lower may not require such a tax, while a target of 75% or higher would likely necessitate significant government spending and the implementation of a carbon pricing mechanism. This creates a political dilemma: how to balance ambitious climate goals with economic realities and public sentiment.
Diverging Opinions on the 2035 Target
The debate surrounding the 2035 emissions target is polarized. Climate advocates argue that a target in the 70% range should be the minimum ambition, while the Business Council of Australia contends that a target above 50% could jeopardize billions in exports. The current legislated interim target is a 43% reduction by 2030, which is already seen as a compromise. Critics argue that merely extending this target to 2035 would be inadequate and would not reflect the urgency of the climate crisis.
Former UN climate chief Christiana Figueres has publicly urged the Albanese government to adopt a target of at least 75%. However, this call for higher ambition is complicated by the fact that many countries, including Australia, are struggling to meet their existing commitments. The United States, for example, has effectively abandoned its climate goals under the previous administration, and many other signatories to the Paris Agreement have submitted NDCs that are vague or conditional.
A Global Perspective: What Are Other Countries Doing?
Australia is not alone in grappling with the complexities of climate commitments. Of the 175 countries that signed the Paris Agreement, only 27 have submitted their third NDCs. Many of these submissions are criticized for being filled with conditions and excuses. For instance, the United Kingdom has set a target of 81% reduction by 2035 compared to 1990 levels, which translates to about 77% below 2005 levels. Norway aims for a 70-75% reduction, while New Zealand has set its target at 51-55%.
In contrast, countries like Cambodia and Zambia have set much lower targets, often contingent on international support. This inconsistency highlights the challenges of global climate governance and the varying levels of commitment among nations.
The Economic Implications of Climate Targets
Australia’s economic reliance on fossil fuel exports complicates its climate ambitions. The government continues to approve new fossil fuel projects, such as the recent approval of Woodside’s North West Shelf gas project. This raises questions about the feasibility of achieving ambitious emissions targets while simultaneously expanding fossil fuel infrastructure. The approval is conditional on the project achieving net-zero emissions by 2050, which will require significant investment in carbon offsets.
Economists like Ross Garnaut have suggested that a carbon tax should apply to both domestic use and exports. However, the recent approval of fossil fuel projects indicates that such measures are unlikely to be implemented in the near future. The government faces a dilemma: how to transition to a low-carbon economy while maintaining economic stability and addressing the concerns of various stakeholders, including farmers who oppose new renewable energy infrastructure.
The Role of Nuclear Energy in Australia’s Future
As Australia contemplates its energy future, nuclear power has emerged as a potential solution. The National Party has proposed nuclear energy as a way to achieve net-zero emissions while appeasing agricultural interests. However, the Labor Party has historically been resistant to nuclear energy, complicating the political landscape.
Globally, advancements in nuclear technology, particularly in Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), could offer a viable path forward. China is leading the way in developing SMRs, which promise to be more cost-effective and quicker to deploy than traditional nuclear plants. If Australia were to embrace this technology, it could complement its renewable energy initiatives and help meet its emissions targets.
Conclusion: A Path Forward
As the Albanese government prepares to announce its 2035 emissions reduction target, it faces a complex web of political, economic, and environmental challenges. The balance between ambition and feasibility will be crucial in determining the nation’s climate future. With global climate commitments in flux and domestic pressures mounting, Australia must navigate this landscape carefully to avoid falling behind in the global fight against climate change. The decisions made in the coming weeks will not only shape Australia’s environmental policy but also its economic trajectory for years to come.
