The real risk of Australia's panned climate strategy is that others follow -Russell

By Clyde Russell

LAUNCESTON, Australia, Oct 28 (Reuters) - Australia's widely criticised plan to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 shows the scale of the global challenge ahead of the Glasgow climate summit, namely achieving real, actionable commitments instead of vague and hopeful statements.

The problem is not that Australia, the world's largest exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG) and number two in coal, has belatedly adopted a net-zero goal for 2050, it is that the plan lacks details and relies largely on optimistic assumptions, unproven and yet-to-be invented technology.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison, who leads the conservative Liberal-National coalition government, has defended the plan as "right for Australia", and dismissed critics as those who want to shut down industries and destroy livelihoods.

The government's pathway to net zero, revealed on Oct. 26, lays out a broad plan to reduce emissions to net zero by 2050.

Using 2005 as a base, a graphic released by the government showed emissions reductions of 20% have already been achieved, although several environmental analysts dispute that claim, citing changes in how the government calculated emissions.

Even if the government figures are accepted, the 2050 plan relies heavily on changes in technology.

For example, 40% of the remaining reduction in emissions is to come from the Technology Investment Roadmap, and the government aims to invest A$20 billion ($15 billion) to support this process.

What exactly this means is less clear, but it is almost certain to include spending on things like carbon capture and storage (CCS), carbon capture in soils and producing hydrogen from renewable energy, or from natural gas with CCS.

The problem is CCS has had limited success, and where it has worked it has mainly been in upstream fossil fuel projects, rather than in end-user operations such as power plants and energy-intensive industries such as steel and cement.

Carbon farming in soil is also promising, but there are doubts as to how much carbon can actually be sequestered through this process.

The government also talked of something called "ultra-low-cost solar", again without spelling out what this really means.

In addition to the 40% reduction planned to be achieved through technology, the government's pathway also included a further 15% from changes in global technology and 15% more from "further technology breakthroughs".

The remaining reduction is to come from domestic and international carbon offsets.

Put another way, 70% of planned reductions in carbon emissions is to come from technology, topped up by carbon offsets for the rest.


It is not hard to see why Morrison's plans were largely dismissed by climate scientists, energy experts and analysts.

This is not to say that changes in technology will not be helpful, but it seems to be asking a lot for them to do virtually everything to meet Australia's goal.

Nowhere in Morrison's plans are methods proven to work, such as a price on carbon, increased subsidies for renewable energy and electric vehicles, or a commitment to end fossil fuel investments and exports.

The plan seems more political than practical, and is almost what you would expect if you forced a bunch of climate change sceptics to come up with a pathway that is more marketing spin than substance.

Of course, Morrison's government contains many noted climate change sceptics and deniers, and while a senior government minister, prior to becoming prime minister, Morrison once brandished a lump of coal in parliament, telling his opponents not to be scared of the polluting fuel.

Morrison is certain to face criticism from his counterparts at the United Nations COP26 climate conference in Glasgow, which runs from Oct. 31 to Nov. 12.

He will no doubt do his best to deflect this and stick to his script that Australia will chart its own course.

If he is successful in this, he will show other countries that are reluctant to make meaningful changes to address climate change that style can perhaps triumph over substance.

Official Australian government graphic on pathway to net-zero
emissions by 2050 Link

Editing by Christopher Cushing

免責聲明: XM Group提供線上交易平台的登入和執行服務,允許個人查看和/或使用網站所提供的內容,但不進行任何更改或擴展其服務和訪問權限,並受以下條款與條例約束:(i)條款與條例;(ii)風險提示;(iii)完全免責聲明。網站內部所提供的所有資訊,僅限於一般資訊用途。請注意,我們所有的線上交易平台內容並不構成,也不被視為進入金融市場交易的邀約或邀請 。金融市場交易會對您的投資帶來重大風險。


本網站的所有XM和第三方所提供的内容,包括意見、新聞、研究、分析、價格其他資訊和第三方網站鏈接,皆爲‘按原狀’,並作爲一般市場評論所提供,而非投資建議。請理解和接受,所有被歸類為投資研究範圍的相關内容,並非爲了促進投資研究獨立性,而根據法律要求所編寫,而是被視爲符合營銷傳播相關法律與法規所編寫的内容。請確保您已詳讀並完全理解我們的非獨立投資研究提示和風險提示資訊,相關詳情請點擊 這裡查看。

我們運用 cookies 提供您最佳之網頁使用經驗。更改您的cookie 設定跟詳情。

風險提示: 您的資金存在風險。杠杆商品可能不適合所有客戶。 請詳細閱讀我們的風險聲明