Media Releases

The impact of extreme weather events on food prices dwarf the modest increases expected under the proposed CPRS or even more ambitious emissions trading schemes, The Climate Institute briefing paper Food Prices and Emissions Trading released today shows.

Read more: Food prices more at risk from climate than emissions trading

This afternoon’s announcement from Minister Wong regarding Australia’s emissions target submission to the Copenhagen Accord represents a missed opportunity to acknowledge that global ambition has increased significantly since May last year when the 5-25% target range was first announced.

While we welcome the Government’s move to keep the 25% target on the table, the introduction of new conditions for moving beyond 5% is disappointing.

The Government has pledged to do no more and no less than other countries. Given the pledges already on the table from the world’s largest emitters, including Australia’s largest trading partners, a 5% target is nothing less than free riding.

Professor Garnaut has done the numbers and believes the conditions are right for Australia to adopt an 18% target. The Climate Institute’s own analysis suggests that conditions previously set for the 15% target are likely to be met.

In recent months we’ve seen Japan, China, South Korea and India – which account for close to half of Australia’s total exports, and 74% of total export growth since 2006 – announce bold targets and plans to transform their economies.

Sticking to a 5% target is low balling Australia’s ambition and risks marooning Australia’s economy as one of the highest polluting and inefficient economies, whilst others, including competing economies in Asia, are stepping up their investments.

World governments have stumbled badly but not fallen in the quest for ambitious global climate action giving no excuse for inaction at home, The Climate Institute said today at the conclusion of extraordinary scenes at the UN Copenhagen Climate Summit.

"Word leaders have emerged with a disappointing* and fragile agreement for collective climate action but those who back delay should take no inspiration," said John Connor, CEO, The Climate Institute.

"It is economically and environmentally reckless to ignore the low carbon and efficient economic drivers our competitors and trading partners around the world are building for energy security and cost effectiveness, as much as climate reasons.

"We should not forget that last year, before Copenhagen, global clean energy investments outstripped fossil fuel investment for the first time.

"The US, China and many other nations emphatically reinforced they would be continuing to drive such investments and dramatically improve the carbon productivity of their economies."

"Governments failed in Copenhagen to turbo boost those significant domestic initiatives into sufficient international action, but it would be economically and environmentally irresponsible to hold back on economy wide reforms on energy efficiency, clean energy and emissions trading,

"The outcome is a fragile platform for collective action which requires added urgency and focus for those Australian politicians and businesses serious about taking effective action on climate change.

"A serious and prudent response to the competitiveness and climate challenges requires backing Australian commitments to at least 25 per cent reductions by 2020, as well as getting on with energy efficiency, clean energy and emission trading policy improvements.

"The final hours of Copenhagen Summit were mired in disarray and disappointment, but the global clean energy race is accelerating with China, the US and others continuing full throttle towards competitive industries, jobs and investments - Australia cannot afford to be left behind."

"Despite the disappointments at the UN level, Australia needs to press ahead with strong policies to drive low carbon and clean energy investments to take advantage of opportunities but also to prepare for the urgent climate action that is inevitable," said Mr Connor.

* The Climate Institute rated the accord one star out of five on the issues needed to be settled for a strong foundation for a robust and legally binding treaty to deliver ambitious global action on climate change.

The stalled Copenhagen Accord is no excuse for stalling domestic action to address climate change, The Climate Institute said today from the UN Climate Summit.

"The Copenhagen Accord has hit a major roadblock but it is no excuse for inaction at home," said John Connor, CEO of The Climate Institute.

"The Copenhagen Summit is mired in disarray and disappointment, but the global clean energy race is accelerating with China and the US continuing full throttle towards competitive industries, jobs and investments - Australia cannot afford to be left behind.

"The US and China said loudly and clearly that, regardless of the UN outcome, they will continue unconditional action to reduce emissions, develop clean energy industries because it is in their national interests such as energy and resource security.

"Despite inaction at the UN level, Australia needs to press ahead with strong policies to drive low carbon and clean energy investments to take advantage of those opportunities but also to prepare for the urgent climate action that is inevitable."

The Copenhagen Accord still being debated is a ‘flimsy foundation' and does not set a path for a legally binding global climate treaty and The Climate Institute supports calls for the UN talks to be suspended and reconvened as early as possible next year.

"There is now a mountain to climb to get from the Copenhagen Accord to an effective, legally binding treaty next year and we are not even at base camp," Mr Connor said.

"Countries were not prepared to put even provisional pollution reduction targets on the table and it's impossible to assess whether the Copenhagen Accord would even form the foundation for a treaty that will avoid a 2oC increase on global temperature.

"Current emission targets would lock in dangerous climate change and the outcome is a collective failure of the world's largest polluters to deliver a fair, ambitious and binding agreement."

"Commitments on international financing were welcome but without robust mechanisms to ensure financial pledges are actually delivered, the Accord risks entrenching distrust between countries," Mr Connor said.

The Climate Institute's assessment of the Accord, according to its Copenhagen Checklist, rates the outcome of the meeting only 1 star out of a possible five.

See The Climate Institute's assessment of the Copenhagen Accord