The Australian government is expected to provide its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) under the Paris Agreement on Climate Change in September this year. As part of this, Australia will set a national target for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) by 2035.

The Climate Change Authority (CCA) provides advice to government on Australia’s target. The advice should be in line with the Paris Agreement aim of keeping global warming well below 2C above pre-industrial levels and attempting to hold it as close as possible to 1.5C. 

In 2024, the CCA suggested a target of 65-75% below 2005 emission levels. It is due to finalise its advice this year. 

The Climate Council has produced a report which argues that this target is too low and a target of net zero by 2035 is in line with the Paris Agreement aims (see the discussion of ‘net zero’ and why it should focus on actual emissions reductions, at the end of this paper).

An important consideration is the recent advice of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that countries have a responsibility to endeavour to hold global warming to 1.5C as a matter of international human rights.

Australian courts have previously argued that the federal government does not have a legal obligation, or ‘duty of care’, to protect its citizens from climate change. The advice by the ICJ will obviously challenge this position.

A complicating factor is that the Climate Council report, drawing on the best climate modelling available, suggests that attempting to hold global warming to 1.5C is now effectively impossible and the best we can do is aim to hold it to below 2C in the short term and aim for subsequent decline.

Therefore, if we accept the Climate Council position as well-founded, we cannot accept the CCA suggested target of 65-75% emissions reduction by 2035.

We should be advocating for a target of net zero by ‘at least’ 2035, and if possible earlier. 

Scientists recently advised that the ‘carbon budget’ for 1.5C (the amount of greenhouse gases we can emit to stay within 1.5C) allows only about three more years of emissions at current levels for even a 50% chance of staying within 1.5C. As a high-income economy with historical responsibilities for emissions, Australia at least should be aiming for net zero within this time.  (Some scientists argue that we have effectively passed 1.5C already “but that does not mean give up, but try harder”.)

Therefore, we could argue Australia should be aiming for net zero by at least 2035 and preferably within three years from now (2028), even though we may not entirely meet the latter target.

The Climate Council key findings states the first steps are:

• no new or expanded fossil fuel production
• phase out all existing fossil fuel production and use including exports

This will require huge effort by Australian governments at all levels and by individuals and communities. However, relevant experience in Australia’s capacity to act effectively on environmental and public health goals, such as restricting tobacco use, reducing water use in the Millennium Drought, and responding to the Covid pandemic, suggests we are capable of major achievements when government and communities work together.

‘Net Zero’ and actual emissions reductions

Net Zero refers to the level of greenhouse gas emissions which can emitted without adding to the greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere, either because they are absorbed by ‘natural sinks’ such as oceans, forests, wetlands and soils, or because they are removed by human-made technological methods such as carbon capture and storage.

Leading analysts advise that technological methods of carbon removal should not be considered as a significant aspect of net zero. The Climate Council takes this position and the CCA also appears to accept this (see the CCA Sector Pathways Review for discussion)

Similarly, the use of nature-based methods (for example through increasing ‘natural sinks’ such as forests) is often taken to ‘offset’ actual emissions. Much of Australia’s supposed emissions reduction to date is attributed to this, to the so-called ‘LULUCF’ (Land use, land use change and forestry) sector. In some cases, this is even hypothetical, for example relating to proposed clearing that did not take place. 

This calculation is complex, theoretical and sometimes unreliable – for example when forests don’t succeed or are burned. 

As the Climate Council argues, targets should be based on genuine reductions of greenhouse gas emissions, rather than offsets.

This discussion paper was written by Valerie Kay.