Scott Morrison made Australia even more of a climate pariah at the United Nations’ climate change conference in Glasgow. Sarah Hathway reports.
The media may claim the biggest outrage at COP26 was Morrison’s leak of texts between him and French president Emmanuel Macron around the cancellation of the submarine deal, but that is far from the truth.
The disaster is the Coalition’s refusal to join a global pledge to cut methane emissions. (Russia, India and Iran also refused to sign up.) The Global Methane Pledge was one of the key actions to come from COP26.
The pledge was announced at a UN General Assembly meeting in September. Over the course of COP26 the number of signatories rose from 60 nations to more than 100. They include the United States, the European Union and Brazil — key methaneproducing countries.
Emissions from fossil fuel use in industry, transport and mining have continued to rise, despite a temporary reduction at the start of the pandemic. Even if we could all change from gas-powered energy to solar rooftops, this does not change what McKibben described as the carbon and emissions “deeply embedded in the guts of the system”. Rather than focusing on lifestyle change, the real job of individuals he said “is to join together to force basic political and economic change that will rip carbon out of the guts of these systems”.
Energy minister Angus Taylor said the government had a “whole of economy” approach and it would not be “setting sector-specific targets”. Taylor’s spurious response stems from his government’s overwhelming focus on the exploration, mining and export of gas. This was very apparent at COP26: the oil and gas company Santos was a prominent feature of the Australian pavilion apparently at the insistence of Taylor.
The government’s “plan” for net-zero emissions by 2050 includes no specific gas or industry targets and no new policies. It relies on untested carbon capture and storage technology, all the while continuing to allow a rise in fossil fuel emissions.
Worse than a fringe dweller, Morrison was actively involved in undermining the G20 climate goals at the Rome summit before COP26. As well as leading the opposition to the 2030 methane emission reduction pledge, he also successfully opposed plans to phase out coal power in advanced economies by 2030. Further, Morrison used his final comments to the summit to oppose the abolition of fossil fuels, demanding the focus be on “adaptation” and “empowerment”.
The G20 summit did not adopt a firm goal for net zero by 2050. Instead, it agreed to end public financing for coal power plants, but without exact dates and with words implying the importance of reaching net zero by or around the middle of the century.
Despite finally signing on to the 2050 net-zero target, the government’s target of a 26–28 percent reduction in carbon emissions compared to 2005 levels by 2030, lags behind other capitalist countries. The US is aiming to reduce emissions by at least 50 percent and Britain is aiming for more than 60 percent.
There is a widespread understanding, and growing proof, that renewable energies are reliable and cheaper than fossil fuels and would create more jobs. However, their solution to the climate emergency will not come by waiting for the market to catch up. As climate activist Bill McKibben told the ABC’s 7.30 on 4 November, the market will “ultimately” force a change away from fossil fuels. However, he said, “ultimately is not good enough for the crisis we’re facing”.
Emissions from fossil fuel use in industry, transport and mining have continued to rise, despite a temporary reduction at the start of the pandemic. Even if we could all change from gas-powered energy to solar rooftops, this does not change what McKibben described as the carbon and emissions “deeply embedded in the guts of the system”. Rather than focusing on lifestyle change, the real job of individuals he said “is to join together to force basic political and economic change that will rip carbon out of the guts of these systems”.
The lesson from the G20 and COP26 is that it is not enough to just change an extreme climate foot-dragging government into a seemingly climate friendly, big talking, but small action alternative. We need an alternative that puts people and planet before profits.
- Read ISV magazine in full here