Practical steps and policy innovations to address climate change in Queensland

by Professor Brendan Mackey

In Paris on 12 December 2015, Australia, along with 194 other countries, decided to adopt the Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. In adopting the Agreement, the world’s governments have committed to:

• mitigate or reduce greenhouse gas emissions as needed to hold the increase in the global average temperature to between 1.5–2° C above pre-industrial levels,
• establish the global goal on adaptation of enhancing adaptive capacity,
• strengthening resilience and reducing vulnerability to climate change, and
• make available the finance needed for mitigation and adaptation.

The time has come for governments at all levels to rapidly advance policies and programs that will help sectors mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to the now unavoidable impacts of a rapidly changing climate.

While a 2° C increase does not sound like much, the average planetary surface temperature is only about 14°C degrees so a 2° C rise is an increase of some 15%. By comparison, a healthy body temperature is 37° C. If your body temperature increases 15% you will experience a life threatening fever of 42.6° C; a body temperature greater than 41.5° C is called hyperpyrexia and is considered a medical emergency.

Setting a global warming target of well below 2 °C is therefore highly significant as this will help further reduce the risk of planetary hyperpyrexia, avoiding many significant impacts arising from passing tipping points in Earth’s climate system.

What will need to happen?

Meeting the Paris Agreement target will require reducing greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuel for energy, and from deforestation and degradation, to around zero sometime in the second half of this century.

We are already experiencing record temperatures and the impacts of an increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, as predicted by science.

With ongoing impacts projected for the coming decades, the cost of inaction to managed assets alone should be sufficient to compel a step change in public and private sector responses.

Because greenhouse gas emissions arise in all sectors of the economy and enter the global commons of the atmosphere, greenhouse mitigation requires a closely coupled network of national and international regulatory regimes of high integrity in order to prevent leakage and double accounting.

Carbon in the form of greenhouse gas emissions is effectively the property of national governments; notwithstanding the existence of voluntary carbon markets.

A synthesis report of mitigation commitments submitted by nations for the Paris Agreement estimated that global cumulative atmospheric CO2 emissions can be expected to reach 748.2 billion tonnes in 2030. This is 87% of the post 2015 global carbon budget for 2° C, leaving only 235 billion tonnes of CO2 or about a further 23 years of business-as-usual emissions.

Missing the mark?

The world community is not on course to limit global warming to well below 2o C and current mitigation commitments leave too much of the heavy lifting to future generations. Given the world community’s aggregate Paris Agreement pledges to date fall short of what is needed, national targets must increase.

The Australian Government has a national carbon mitigation policy called the Direct Action Plan which it argues is sufficient to meet Paris Agreement targets; though this claim is contested. Nonetheless, even Australia’s arguably modest mitigation commitment, a 26–28% reduction in emissions below 2005 levels by2030, will still require a concerted effort.

While the Australian Government’s response is important in providing the overarching incentives and enabling environment, it is at the state and local government levels where the on-the-ground action occurs for adaptation as well as mitigation.

The Queensland Government, therefore, is to be congratulated for its endeavour to develop a state-wide climate change adaptation strategy (Q-CAS).

To be effective, the Q-CAS should encompass a governance framework that includes appropriate institutional arrangements, engagement and communication strategies, along with monitoring and evaluation. A strategy is needed that:

• Provides a vision for adaptation in Queensland and obtain a broad as possible endorsement of this vision from business, the public and community groups, politicians, along with experts and practitioners,
• Articulates a succinct, accurate and accessible narrative of the future climate risks facing Queensland and why adaptation is critical in key sectors, and
• Promotes best practice principles for adaptation and resilience planning.

Promoting effective adaptation responses is crucial

Governments generally have a responsibility to manage and reduce climate-related risks to help ensure the safety and prosperity of its citizens with respect to both the built and natural environment. There are a range of levers the Queensland Government can draw upon to promote more effective climate change adaption responses in the State:

• Policies should be reviewed, including planning systems, regulatory frameworks and legislation, in terms of whether they are hindering adaptation or might be causing maladaptation,
• It is vital that the general public are aware of risks and response options
• Many sectors and organisation are already responding to the challenge of adapting to a rapidly changing climate and the government can assist by facilitating collaboration among the adaptation community within Queensland and beyond the State’s borders.
• The government could provide a state-wide framework of guidance documents and resources on how to conduct impact and vulnerability assessments and to identify adaptation options. This type of guidance would be particularly useful for getting consistency and an economy of scale in the actions of local governments and how they implement key legislation in a changing climate
• Given the managed assets at risks are both private and public, it will be important to ensue private investment also considers adaptation and maladaptation in their decision-making
• Innovative risk spreading instruments may be required and the government here could play a facilitating role. This is particularly relevant for sectors like agriculture that are directly reliant on weather patterns for profit, let alone long-term survival
• The Queensland government could support adaptation pilot projects that can be realistically scaled-up, either through direct funding, in-kind or enabling legislation, and through
• Promoting the monitoring and assessment of the effectiveness of adaptions actions and reviewing the availability of the data and information needed for adaptation, addressing any barriers to their access and use.

Regarding mitigation, irrespective of the level of national ambition, throughout the world subnational governments, businesses and communities are taking the lead in reducing emissions and advancing the transition to a zero carbon economy.

In the lexicon of international policy, this is called ‘climate action by non-party stakeholders’ and the Paris Agreement acknowledged the significance of their contributions.

What more could Queensland do?

In line with recommendations from a recent OECD report, a range of further actions could be taken by the Queensland Government to accelerate mitigation action including polices that:

• Recognise the role of the private sector in implementing and financing mitigation actions
• Incentivise low-carbon investments and enhance private sector capacity to manage the risks to such investments
• Enhance sharing and dissemination of information and knowledge to help catalyse further actions
• Encourage the use of common, comprehensive accounting and reporting approaches to increase confidence in the reliability and transparency of mitigation action assessments, and
• Explore the desirability and feasibility of carbon markets, above and beyond that of the Direct Action Plan, to further incentivise actions by the private sector.

One of the more significant mitigation policy reforms the Queensland Government may need to consider in the coming years concerns fossil fuel subsidies. Globally, the IMF estimates these subsidies at US$5.3 trillion in 2015, or 6.5% of global GDP; with Australia’s rate of fossil fuel subsidy being $1,712 per person per year. Commentators have argued that fossil fuel subsidies distort energy markets and encourage wasteful consumption. Removing such subsidies can help internalise the real environmental costs of fossil fuel and may serve to increase the competitiveness of renewable energy sources.

However, Australia and Queensland’s economy remain heavily dependent on fossil fuel energy which generates 85% of Australia’s electricity. Exports of black coal alone in 2013–14 were around 375 million tonnes, 68% of our total energy exports, and export earnings from thermal coal, oil and gas total around $58 billion annually. This economic dependency on fossil fuel is a major barrier to energy policy reform and development of a comprehensive approach to addressing the challenges of climate change.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

BRENDAN MACKEY

Professor Brendan Mackey is Director, Griffith Climate Change Response Program, Griffith University.

Brendan has a PhD in ecology from the Australian National University. His research addresses the interactions between climate change, biodiversity and land use; the role of science in policy formulation of environmental regulatory frameworks; and the nexus between climate change responses and sustainable development.

He has a special interest in the science and policy of ecosystem-based adaptation and mitigation and related public policy issues. He is a member of the International Council for the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Brendan serves on various governmental advisory bodies including the science advisory group to the Climate Change Commission. He has written over 150 academic publications including journal articles, books and book chapters.