Big Objections over Australian Carbon Emissions Strategy

Two Australian academics serving on a government climate panel have publicly denounced their own committee’s latest report as untrue and dangerous and stoking a long-running argument over the country’s carbon emissions reduction strategies, according to Science Mag.

Australia’s Climate Change Authority is a panel that was created in 2012 to provide expert advice on carbon emission reduction initiatives. On August 31^st, Wendy Craik, deputy chancellor at the University of South Australia, Adelaide, released a review on the actions Australia should take in delivering its international commitments under the Paris Agreement of December 2015.

The two dissenting members published their own minority report after highlighting their objections in an op-ed that appeared on the Sydney Morning Herald online website.

The dispute focuses on the country’s carbon emissions reduction target. At the Paris summit, Australia’s government pledged to decrease the country’s carbon emissions to 26-28% on 2005 levels by 2030. The Climate Change Authority’s propositions are based on the said target. Clive Hamilton, an economist at Charles Sturt University in Canberra and David Karoly, a climate scientist at the University of Melbourne, also noted that the Australian government also agreed to its share to keep the global temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius, which is the key objective of the Paris agreement. They also argued that the 26% to 28% is inconsistent with Australia’s international obligations.

Clive Hamilton, an economist at Charles Sturt University in Canberra and David Karoly, a climate scientist at the University of Melbourne, also noted that the Australian government also agreed to its share to keep the global temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius, which is the key objective of the Paris agreement. They also argued that the 26% to 28% is inconsistent with Australia’s international obligations.

Paul Read, sustainability expert at Monash University, has given his support to the two experts. He stated that their dissenting argument has been supported by the majority of scientists for years and adding that the authority’s report avoid the entire problem, with far greater pain into the future.

Click here to read the full story on Science Mag

Featured Image Credit: Takver