Climate change claim questioned

I note the comments made by Federal Member for Nicholls Damian Drum (News, February 4) and would contest many of his facts and statements but none more than his contention that ‘‘Australia leads the world’’.

This claim couldn’t be further from the truth on the international stage where Australia has played a destructive role from Kyoto negotiations in 1997 to the most recent gathering of nations in Madrid last year, with its intention to use Kyoto ‘‘credits’’ to meet its Paris Agreement targets.

"Those credits are highly
contentious" - John Pettigrew.

These ‘‘credits’’ are highly contentious for two reasons: how they were achieved and the intention to use these credits to weaken Australia’s response to the Paris Agreement.

Australia’s Kyoto delegation was dominated by representatives of the fossil fuel industries and led by Coalition Environment Minister Senator Robert Hill.

Throughout these negotiations Australia demanded special treatment, despite being one of the most affluent of developed countries and the highest per capita emitter in the world.

Australia negotiated a target at Kyoto in 1997 which allowed an increase in Australia’s greenhouse emissions by eight per cent above 1990 levels, three per cent higher than other developed countries.

Not satisfied with this concession, the Australian delegation then demanded what is known as ‘‘the Australia clause’’, which allowed the inclusion of carbon emission credits from reduced land clearing.

This inclusion allowed Australia’s emissions from fossil fuels to potentially rise by 25 to 30 per cent above 1990 levels as land clearing (not occurring in other developed countries) had already reduced dramatically at the time.

The Howard Government then, after demanding these concessions and undermining global emission targets, refused to ratify the Kyoto Agreement.

Australia, in announcing its intention to use ‘‘surplus’’ Kyoto credits to achieve its modest Paris targets, has again put our country at odds with the rest of the world and is again holding back global action to reduce emissions.

The Coalition Government was elected with an emission reduction target of 26 to 28 per cent by 2030 on 2005 levels, a clear mandate.

However, the use of ‘‘Kyoto credits’’ was never mentioned before or during this election and cannot be seen in any way as being endorsed by the electorate.

In September last year, Prime Minister Morrison twice told Today our per capita emissions would fall by half between now and 2030: ‘‘We will reduce our carbon emissions per capita by half between now and 2030.

‘‘Our per capita emissions will fall by half over the next 10 years.’’

If, as Prime Minister Morrison insists, Australia will meet its Paris targets ‘‘in a canter’’, why would Australia continue to threaten the use of Kyoto credits?

Australia should drop any intention to use these dubious credits and join with nations of the world to ensure that realistic and ambitious carbon reduction targets are set and met.

Letter from John Pettigrew, Bunbartha, published in The Shepparton News - “Climate change claim questioned”

Australia gets out the wrecking ball, again, in international climate talks

Well, that didn’t take long. Little more than a week after the elevation of Scott Morrison to the prime minister’s office, Australia has returned to the bad old ways that were a feature of Tony Abbott’s engagement on climate change, and John Howard’s involvement with Kyoto.

In separate arena this week, Australia has been accused of attempting to water down the language of the Pacific Islands Forum declaration on climate change. And in Bangkok it has sided with the Trump administration and Japan in attempting to weaken climate finance obligations in a move that has horrified some observers.

Australia is coming under increasing scrutiny since Malcolm Turnbull announced the country was dumping the emissions obligation proposed for the National Energy Guarantee, and was then dumped by the party’s climate denying conservative wing anyway.

Read the story by Giles Parkinson from RenewEconomy - “Australia gets out the wrecking ball, again, in international climate talks.”

Tackling climate change, with a pen!

The pen is mightier than the sword
and used with enthusiasm it can
help mitigate climate change.

Letter writing might seem inadequate in the face of the overwhelmingly power of the forces that are leading the world down the path of climate change, but that is not true.

The “Letters” section of newspapers is one of the most avidly read sections with the content being devoured by people from all walks of life – from casual readers to decision makers and from caring, sensitive believers of the global warming science through to the rather sad skeptics and doubters.

Enthusiastic Beneath the Wisteria supporter, John Pettigrew, is one who understands the value and importance of letter writing and below is a copy of his latest letter to the Shepparton News.
Well done John!

Lack of conviction.

To achieve their 2020 target of a 5% reduction in carbon emissions the Coalition would need to spend an extra $4 billion. The current Coalition policy and funding estimates do not reduce Australia’s carbon pollution, but would result in a rise by 8 to 10 per cent above 2000 levels by 2020.

These are the latest findings of a study and detailed modelling undertaken by SKM–MMA and Monash University’s Centre of Policy Studies that was commissioned by internationally recognised The Climate Institute.

This latest study casts serious doubts over the effectiveness of the coalition’s “Direct Action” policy despite stated policy to avoid a 2 degree increase in global temperature. Also cast into doubt must be its support in principle for a second commitment to Kyoto and its support for current Renewable Energy Targets.

Whilst even the current Government’s domestic policies, including pricing carbon emissions hardly go far enough, the coalition’s policies have been found to be 40% less effective.

These facts together with the  intention to ‘review” Australia’s Renewable Energy Targets next year and recent statements by Tony Abbot that direct action funding is capped, and not to be increased, highlights the coalition’s stated policy to reduce carbon emissions totally lacks conviction.

John Pettigrew.