They also agreed that to achieve this the world had to reach net zero emissions by 2050, which in turn would be impossible without each nation hitting interim reduction targets, such as in 2030 and 2035.<\/p>\n
Loading<\/p>\n
Then the geopolitics kicked in.<\/p>\n
Why should smaller or developing nations be compelled to cut their emissions as much as the richer countries or the larger ones that were causing so much more warming? And why should developing nations not be allowed the chance to build their wealth with carbon just as the rich nations already had? They\u2019ve got a point.<\/p>\n
To get around this, the signatories agreed to the principle of \u201ccommon but differentiated responsibilities\u201d.<\/p>\n
In practical terms, this means that under the treaty, nations set their own emissions targets as their fair contribution to the global effort.<\/p>\n
Those targets are set acknowledging each nation\u2019s capacities and historical contributions, and are known as Nationally Determined Contributions, or NDCs.<\/p>\n
How will our goal be set?<\/p>\n
In short, the Climate Change Authority, headed by former NSW treasurer and climate and energy minister Matt Kean, will make a recommendation to Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen, who in turn will make a case to cabinet.<\/p>\n
The CCA is consulting across the economy and with community and industry groups to understand climate impacts and the capacity of various sectors to reduce emissions. It will provide its recommendation in the coming weeks.<\/p>\n
Both the CCA and Bowen have declared they want the target to be both ambitious and achievable. Kean sometimes throws in the word \u201cresponsible\u201d too, quietly emphasising that the target must be in keeping with global expectations.<\/p>\n
Last year, the CCA issued a discussion paper suggesting that reducing emissions by between 65 and 75 per cent would fit those criteria.<\/p>\n
Who\u2019s saying what?<\/p>\n
Australia\u2019s peak scientific body now believes that even a 75 per cent cut by 2035 will be too little too late. Because global efforts to cut emissions have not been fast enough over the past decade, we must cut harder and faster by 2035 to keep the Paris goals of stabilising below 2 degrees alive, according to the Australian Academy of Science.<\/p>\n
The Climate Council is also calling for the full net zero by 2035, as are the Greens.<\/p>\n
After her meetings in Canberra this week, Climate Council chief executive Amanda McKenzie noted that Queensland, NSW and Victoria had already backed targets falling between 70 and 80 per cent.<\/p>\n
Loading<\/p>\n
Pushed on the matter during a press conference on Tuesday, Liberal Leader Sussan Ley ducked the issue, emphasising the need to cut energy bills.<\/p>\n
Teal MP Zali Steggall said last night that she accepted the scientific advice that net zero by 2035 might be necessary, but also noted the political and practical reality that such a goal might be out of reach.<\/p>\n
She is calling for a target of \u201cat least\u201d 75 per cent, and believes that view is shared by her crossbench colleagues.<\/p>\n
Labor MPs are waiting for the Climate Change Authority\u2019s advice.<\/p>\n
And so what about the Nationals drift towards the abandonment of any target at all?<\/p>\n
Stegall finds the position preposterous. \u201cThey [the Nationals] want to put their hand out when climate disasters strike, but they don\u2019t want to do anything to mitigate the risk.\u201d<\/p>\n
The only certainty is that the climate wars are not yet over.<\/p>\n