Home Business Major parties need to do better in climate protection

Major parties need to do better in climate protection


It is easy to feel overwhelmed in the face of climate change and environmental degradation and despair of the dangerous mess that countries and corporations have created in the relentless pursuit of capital, growth and cheap power.

As good citizens, we try to reduce our emissions by purchasing solar panels, restricting air travel or responsibly investing money, but the solutions to these evil problems are structural and beyond human power.


However in this week’s election ordinary Australians have the opportunity to vote, which will have huge implications for this pressing issue. This is a critical decade for action on climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says global emissions must be halved by 2030 to hope to limit global warming to or close to 1.5 degrees. We must act.

Disappointed voters often turn to the truth that “both sides are as bad as each other.” But let’s be clear – in this election, the climate and environmental policies of the two main parties are very different, even if neither of them goes far enough.

The coalition clung to itself like a sink Target reduction of carbon dioxide emissions by 26 percent by 2030 (at the level of 2005)and eleven hours before the Glasgow climate meeting, it reached zero by 2050. This makes Australia’s target the weakest among all developed countries and is in line with catastrophic global warming of 3 degrees worldwide, bordering on 4 degrees.

Coalition emission reductions plan relies heavily on “technological breakthroughs” such as investment in “pure” hydrogen, energy storage, and carbon capture and storage (CCS), although CCS technology has never worked anywhere in the world on a large scale.

Despite embodying its economic powers, the coalition failed to seize the opportunity to make Australia a renewable energy powerhouse. There is no national energy or transition plan, and progress is being led by states (both political bands). With its abundance of solar and wind resources Australia should be the leader in this race and not try to catch up.

If the Earth is to remain within dangerous global warming limits, new oil and gas fields or coal-fired power plants cannot be built, says the International Energy Agency (IEA). However, during the election, the coalition promised hundreds of millions of dollars for the emission-intensive fossil fuel industry. The costs are much higher coalition commitments for clean energy projects.

How to compare work? It aims to reduce emissions by 43 percent by 2030, less than the 45 percent cut promised in the run-up to the last election, and shows how this election defeat severely affected the party’s climate ambitions. This goal corresponds to 2 degrees of warming worldwide, and climatologists tell us it is not needed: University of Melbourne The simulation showed that Australia’s “fair share” of the global emissions budget to stay within 1.5 degrees would require a 75 percent reduction in emissions by 2030 from a net zero by 2035.


Previous articleHow Russia has revived NATO
Next articleBrooke Warne publishes photos and pays tribute to Andrew Simmonds