The problem with an emissions reduction target, necessary though it is, is that its mere existence implies it is achievable and that if we do achieve it, we will be fine.
New CSIRO modelling suggests Australia’s new targets are difficult to achieve, and even if they are, we won’t be fine.
Australia will not hit the targets of 62-70 per cent reduction by 2035 and net zero by 2050 because the logistics of doing so require new forests the size of half of Victoria to be grown in 10 years, followed by further forests the size of two Tasmanias.Â
These plantations are not to be grown in the outback, either, but on existing farmland near the coast.
CSIRO modelling — released at the same time as the new government target on Thursday and on which it is based — shows that if Australia’s net emissions are to be between 62 and 70 per cent below 2005 levels by 2035, we will need to remove 100 million tonnes of carbon dioxide from the air.Â
That is what will be required to offset one-third of the 300 million tonnes of carbon that we will still be emitting by then.
By 2050, my calculations suggest the removals will have to total 150 million tonnes per year to offset all of the emissions still going, so we can achieve net zero.
We need millions more trees
Until scientists come up with something else, the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is largely done by forests.
A planted forest in a reasonably fertile region in Australia eats about 10 tonnes of CO2 per hectare per year over its first 25 years.
This means the 100 million tonnes of sequestration needed by 2035 would require at least 10 million hectares of land to be covered by new trees, or about half the size of Victoria.
Climate change forces BOM to overhaul El Niño and La Niña analysis
Removing 150 million tonnes of CO2 per year by 2050 would require 15 million hectares of forest, which is a bit more than twice the size of Tasmania.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese did not mention half of Victoria and two Tasmanias being covered by trees when he announced the “achievable” 2035 and 2050 targets last week.
At the moment, most of the sequestration is coming from scrappy forests in the outback and from wetter forests near the coast that are eating more carbon than before because of the decline of logging native forests.
But the inadequate sequestration in the outback will stop when the landscape dries, as it will, and might even go backwards. The sequestration of carbon from the decline of native forest harvesting is a one-off gain.
The most straightforward way to achieve the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere that the CSIRO and, therefore, the government will be relying on is to plant billions of trees on productive agricultural land around the east and west coasts of Australia.Â
This farmland is currently used to grow wheat, canola and grapes, or is where cattle are pastured.
That scenario suggests Australia’s agricultural sector would shrink dramatically. The land will be needed for forests.
EVs won’t save us
You and the Coalition might now be thinking, well, we can get actual emissions down to less than 300 million tonnes in 2035 and 150 million tonnes in 2050 by using nuclear power or something, so we won’t need as many trees.
Think again.
The mammoth task ahead to reach the 2035 target
The CSIRO figures also assume electricity generation is 86 per cent carbon-free by 2035 and 92 per cent by 2050. The modelling assumes no coal is used at all and includes some residual gas generation. There is no nuclear energy.
Other assumptions used in the CSIRO modelling include electric vehicles being 100 per cent of car sales; two-thirds of freight transport is electrified by 2050, and the other third uses biofuels; and that “decarbonisation in air transport and shipping … accelerates in the 2030s as hydrogen carriers and sustainable aviation fuels become commercialised.”
In other words, the targets of 62-70 per cent by 2035 and net zero by 2050 require a cracking pace of decarbonisation of electricity and transport. Not only is that a lot faster than we’re achieving now, but it requires using fuels that haven’t been commercialised yet and adding billions of trees to replace farms as well.
And that’s before we ask an even more fundamental question: is 62-70 per cent enough?
The answer is likely to be no.
America is out of the game
In July, the Climate Council published a report that said the only way to avoid 2 degrees Celsius of global warming, as agreed in Paris in 2015, was for Australia to be net zero by 2035, and the world to be net zero by 2040, not 2050.
The Climate Council is indeed an advocacy group, but the Australian Academy of Science holds the same view.
The 2 degrees Celsius of warming appears to be baked in, as no country in the world is trying to be net zero by 2040.
Climate solutions are already at work
In fact, even if current global targets are met, and only the smallest of them will be met, the warming trajectory suggests the world is heading for a 2.5 degree Celsius temperature rise.
America is out of the game entirely. The Trump administration calls the whole thing a scam and continues to push fossil fuels, daring the climate gods to do their worst.
China’s 2030 target is 65 per cent, and in the first six months of this year, it installed twice as much solar capacity as the rest of the world combined.
But while China’s 2035 target will probably be higher than 65 per cent, it won’t be 100 per cent.
The other big emitter, India, is going for a 45 per cent reduction in emissions intensity, which is not emissions but carbon dioxide as a proportion of GDP, so they’ve effectively given up as well.
In general, as discussed here last week, the global targets are disorderly and inconsistent.
The future reality is unclear
Earlier last week, the Albanese government released two further reports assessing the environment: a National Risk Assessment and a National Adaptation Plan.
Both come up short.
The risk assessment purports to model 1.5, 2, and 3 degrees Celsius of warming, but it is not spelled out clearly enough what exactly happens in each of those scenarios.
Broadly, it’s fair to say that 2 degrees will be terrible for the environment and 3 degrees will be catastrophic. Scientists have been telling us this for years.
But the National Risk Assessment does not spell out the likelihood of each scenario.
Remote communities struggling with heat
Research suggests the planet has already warmed by up to 1.5 degrees Celsius, so the odds of that are 100 per cent, but what are the odds of 2 and 3 degrees? They don’t know, or are not saying.
It surely means the Adaptation Plan was drawn up in the dark. To what extent do we need to adapt to global warming? Should we adapt to bad, terrible, or catastrophic conditions?
Without probabilities to work from, the National Adaptation Plan lacks direction.
The headline number at the top of the report is $3.6 billion “committed to adaptation and resilience measures since 2022 and around $9 billion out to 2030 committed to policies and programs that are helping support broader efforts”.
Those amounts include the addition of existing programmes cobbled together in a long list that looks impressive yet reflects a fraction of the $30 billion that the Insurance Council of Australia says is needed.
The centrepiece is a Disaster Ready Fund of $1 billion over five years, or $200 million a year. This amount not only feels hopelessly inadequate, but the government is struggling to spend it as they wait for the states to submit projects.Â
Insufficient applications are arriving, and those that have been submitted are often small community projects such as storm water drains and guttering on scout halls.
Addressing 2 degrees of warming in the northern rivers region of NSW, for example, will require a complete rethink involving a combination of levees and moving town centres, as well as housing, to higher ground.
With 3 degrees of warming, it’s unlikely that anyone will be able to live in those floodplains at all. North of Brisbane, residents will face frequent cyclones, and anyone living near forests will experience bushfires. Those within a kilometre of the sea will see expanded coastal erosion.
Amanda McKenzie, the CEO of the Climate Council, told me last week that 3 degrees would mean 50-degree Celsius days occurring regularly, which would cost 4 percentage points of GDP because the equivalent of 700,000 days of outdoor work would be lost every year.
A complete rethink of household insurance would also be needed. The National Risk Assessment says some 10 per cent of Australian houses, or about one million homes, will be uninsurable, and many of the rest will see prohibitive increases in premiums.
The government might need to introduce something resembling Medicare for household insurance — that is, a basic level of insurance funded by a levy that lasts until enough mitigation work has been done.
LoadingThe insurance question
Ten years ago, the UK government created a body called Flood Re as a partnership with the insurance industry to provide guaranteed reinsurance for flood claims. The scheme ends in 2039, by which time enough levees are expected to be built to ensure it won’t be needed.
Australia has far bigger and deeper floods than the UK. An Australian flood reinsurer would need to be better funded and last longer, but something like it is the sort of adaptation that could be needed for flood and bushfire-prone regions.
Australia’s refugee program may also need to be rethought to incorporate people displaced by climate disasters from the Pacific and countries like Bangladesh.
The underlying problem is that government policy for global warming is not just about the impact in Australia. It is everywhere. And it assumes that the effort to prevent climate change will work.
Politicians — and scientists — are “optimistic” to keep our spirits up, and their own.
For example, Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen spruiked last week as he released the new 2035 target: “This is an ambitious but achievable target … and it presents Australia with an enormous economic and jobs opportunity.”
The approach suggests not only will everything be fine, but it’ll be great!
But that is not an attitude designed to produce careful risk management and prepare for the worst.
Alan Kohler is a finance presenter and columnist for ABC News.