The coalition was forced to reaffirm its commitment to the climate agreement in Paris after an energy spokeswoman, Ted Operen, It seems to be hesitant To pledge on Thursday.
O’Brien faced against the Minister of Climate and Energy Change, Chris Bowen, in a discussion in Canberra, weeks after the federal elections in which the energy policy appears as a hot issue.
According to the Paris Landmark deal, Australia pledged 43 % of the greenhouse gas emissions by the end of the decade compared to 2005 levels. O’Brien said on Thursday that the coalition would review the goal if its position won and informed a question about whether the Datton government will remain signed on the Paris Agreement, saying that the coalition will “always act in the national interest.”
Within hours of discussion, the coalition was forced to clarify O’Brien’s comments and reaffirm its commitment to Paris. But it seems that the coalition intends to return the goal for 2030 if elected next month – a step that would weaken our commitment to the two net parties by 2050 and be against the interests of the global climate.
Restore the target of 2030
The coalition has long opposed the Labor Party’s allegations that a 43 % goal will be achieved.
In June last year, opposition leader Peter Daton, He claimed that the dairy government has no hope to achieve goals There is no meaning to score in goals, you have no possibility to achieve. “
In January, Daton said An alliance government He will remain a party to Paris, despite Donald Trump’s move to withdraw his nation from the deal.
On Thursday, O’Brien confirmed that the coalition government will retrieve the goal of 43 %. By doing this, you may consider three factors: Australian emissions path, economics and coalition wing of policies – including nuclear energy and more gas.
O’Brien went to say:
The Labor Party, the coalition, will not be able in this country to achieve the goal of the emissions that Chris Boen and Anthony Albanez have set. The difference between Peter Daton and Anthony Albaniz is that Peter Daton was sincere and advanced in that.
O’Brien will not rule out the withdrawal of Australia from the Paris deal, but later issued a statement saying that the coalition had been committed to the agreement.
Will Australia get a goal of 43 %?
During the discussion, Bowen claimed Australia.On the right trackTo meet the goal of reducing emissions. He referred to Analysis of its division The release of emissions in late last year will be 42.6 % lower than 2005 levels in 2030.
Australia will have to work hard to fulfill the goal, with our emissions stopped since 2021. The dropping of the government is supposed to achieve its goal of generating renewable electricity by 82 % by 2030 – possible, but it represents a major challenge from about 45 % today.
This also depends on two policies to reduce emissions outside the electricity, and neither of them has appeared.
The first is Protection mechanismWhich aims to reduce emissions from heavy industry. It started in mid -2013, but its results were not yet clear. The second is The new car efficiency standardIt was presented from January this year.
What if Daton is going in Australia Paris’s commitment?
Even if the Dateon government remains in the Paris Agreement, walking on the goal of emissions by 43 % represents a problem for a number of reasons.
It is clear that the threat of climate change is a real and growing dangerous. The Paris deal aims to maintain the average global temperatures “much lower” 2C higher than pre -industrial levels, and perfectly reduce warming to no more than 1.5 ° C.
but According to official data,, The average monthly global temperature of the Earth exceeded 1.5 ° C higher than pre -industrial levels for 11 months of last year. So meeting Paris’s commitment is already fragile.
Although the Paris Agreement is an international treaty binding on, there was a lot of discussion on the true meaning of “legal link”. Some argue that national obligations to reduce emissions are not legally binding and can be reviewed in either direction. While the descending review is vulnerable to extracting criticism, it can be The legal option under the Paris Agreement – The violators of the club are not left.
But any descending review on the goals is a bad look at the world stage. Jacqueline Bell, Climate Law Expert at the University of Melbourne, Argue Any movements by a future coalition government to reduce Australia’s 2030 goal, or to present the 2035 goal of our current pledges, will:
… inconsistent with the soul, if not the message, from the Paris Agreement, and it can be formed – in some cases – a violation of these obligations.
Where now?
The dairy government chose not to announce the target of 2035 before the elections. The opposition says it will not determine the goal of 2035 until it is in the government.
This means that voters will leave in the dark about this important issue while they are heading to the ballot box.
Currently, the coalition seems to be based on the controversial nuclear energy plan to fulfill the goal of the two parties of zero emissions by 2050. But analysts have warned that the plan would lead to more emissions between now and after.
Meanwhile, there is more work to be done outside the energy sector – in agriculture, transportation, industry and more – to meet climate obligations in Australia.
Australia’s living crisis has taken a lot of attention during the campaign so far. There was a very little talk about how the entire economy in Australia reached zero.
This is a terrible reflection on our policy. Ultimately, the unique climate change will be bad for the planet and Very bad for Australia.