Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
Human Development Index and has among the highest international rankings
for gross national income and per capita wealth. This wealth reflects the accumu-
lated outcome of economic success over the past 150 years, evident in its highly
skilled and well-educated workforce, its productive resources and manufac-
turing sectors, and its well-developed welfare services and public and private
infrastructure. Such collective enrichment also reflects processes of green-
house emissions-intensive agricultural and industrial expansion and indicates
Australia's significant material capacity to invest in mitigation via domestic
action and also to contribute to international adaptation funding ahead of other,
poorer countries.
A country's ranking on international indices of national and per capita
development, wealth and GDP is taken into account in various approaches
offering a development-weighted assessment of national 'mitigation respon-
sibility'. Baer et al. (2008) take these considerations into account. Using
their development-adjustment index and 2020 as 'baseline' dates for national
development, Australia's 2020 target increases to, at minimum,
2
41 per
cent.
It is impossible to be conclusive about the effort that an individual state should
adopt. Even so, the approaches used above show the lower limits for Australia's
2020 target if this is to be equitable and scientifically responsible. Based solely
on current emissions contribution, if Australia is to participate meaningfully and
successfully to an international effort to keep warming below 2°C, its science-
based target cannot be less than
2
38 per cent below 2000 levels. If its efforts
are to reflect its wealth, historical contribution and capacity, and also make
provision for uncertainty, its emissions should be no less than
2
41 per cent and,
given the 'ambition gap' probably higher and at least
2
45 per cent.
By contrast, Australia's current unconditional 2020 target of
2
5 per cent fails
utterly when assessed against the principles by which such a target should be set.
It will fail to contribute to keeping warming below 2°C. It is in no way equitable.
It fails to reflect Australia's substantial economic and technological capacities to
do more.
Carbon, trade and responsibility
National emissions accounting, as enshrined in the rules of the UNFCCC,
includes only emissions produced within state borders. It ignores the flows of
carbon that are a major part of international trade and therefore is 'blind' to the
global warming contributions and associated responsibilities of states, companies
and consumers that sit 'before' or 'after' the point at which those emissions are
released. As a result, consumers of imported manufactured goods, and exporters
of fossil fuels, remain unaccountable for their roles in the co-production of green-
house emissions 'released beyond the border'.
Conveniently for economic beneficiaries such as Australia, Canada, the
Russian Federation and Saudi Arabia, little attention has been paid to trade
in raw (or unburned) fossil fuels, which shifts responsibility for emissions from
exporting nations and companies to the middle-consumers (the states and
