September 17, 2025 • 19 mins
A flurry of numbers relating to climate change have been tossed around all week.
But what do they mean?
Today, environment and climate reporter Bianca Hall and climate and energy correspondent Mike Foley on what impact the government’s climate emissions target for 2035 will have on all of us.
Subscribe to The Age & SMH: https://subscribe.smh.com.au/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
S1 (00:02):
From the newsrooms of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.
This is the morning edition. I'm Samantha Salinger Morris. It's Thursday,
September 18th. A flurry of numbers relating to climate change
have been tossed around all week. But what do they mean? Today,
(00:22):
environment and climate reporter Bianca Hall and climate and energy
correspondent Mike Foley on what impact the government's climate emissions
target for 2035 will have on all of us. Welcome,
Mike and Bianca.
S2 (00:43):
Thanks for having us.
S3 (00:44):
Hi, Sam.
S1 (00:45):
Okay. I'm so glad to have you both here. I
find this topic very confusing, and I know you're going
to help us out. So, Bianca, let's start with you.
Can you just tell us why are we even talking
about the climate now? This is a subject that seems
to be front and centre in the news every now
and again. Now it's back. Why?
S2 (01:03):
Well, this is definitely a climate week. We're talking about
very little, but climate. This week, Australia's national climate risk
assessment was released. It was pretty dark reading. It was
pretty bleak.
S4 (01:16):
Cascading. Compounding. Concurrent. That's how the Australian Climate Service describes
the impact of climate change on every community in our country.
S2 (01:29):
It predicts catastrophic outcomes for Australian health, society and the
economy if global temperatures continue to climb. And we had
a memorable quote from environs Kimberley executive director Martin Pritchard,
who said places like Kimberley's Fitzroy Crossing, which already has
67 days a year over 40 degrees, will be like
(01:51):
a place from a mad Max movie if this comes
to fruition.
S4 (01:56):
There isn't an Australian community that isn't impacted by climate
change going forward, and there isn't an Australian individual for
whom those impacts won't be real and material.
S2 (02:07):
So this comes as we're expecting Chris Bowen, the climate
change minister, to release Australia's 2030 climate targets. This is
the number that we want to get to. If we
are to have a hope of limiting global warming to
1.5 degrees. It's part of our responsibility under the Paris
Agreement to update our targets for 2035. We already have
(02:30):
targets out for 2030. So far, about 31 countries out
of more than 220 have announced their 2035 emissions targets.
And this week, it is Australia's turn.
S1 (02:48):
Okay, so, Bianca, I was hoping you could, first of all,
take us through what the Paris Agreement actually is. And
then I guess what emissions targets actually are.
S2 (02:58):
Okay. So the Paris Agreement just stepping back is an
internationally binding agreement which took effect in 2016. There's hundreds
of countries worldwide that have signed up to it. Broadly,
it aims to limit warming to two degrees, although it's
generally understood now that 1.5 would be far preferable. So
Australia's existing targets are for us to decrease our emissions
(03:20):
by 43% based on 2005 levels by 2030. And the
government's energy department in June said we're on track, hopefully
to hit 42.7% by 2030.
S1 (03:33):
And so, Mike, just just quickly to you. Can you
just tell us why would it be better if we're
aiming for limiting warming to 1.5 degrees as opposed to
two degrees? Like what does that mean?
S3 (03:45):
Yeah, that's that's a great question, Sam, because it goes
to the heart of the fundamental aim of the Paris
Agreement and all the the countries around the world that
have signed up to it, and that limiting global warming
to 1.5 degrees is the sort of the paramount aim
of the Paris Agreement. and it was set that target
(04:06):
by the United Nations, assembled this crack team of hundreds
and hundreds of scientists around the world to do the
peer reviewed science and boil it down. What they determined
is that if you limit global warming to 1.5 degrees,
then that sort of limits cascading catastrophic effects, you know,
(04:26):
in terms of horrible stuff like famine and plague and drought,
food shortages all across the world, and therefore the cost
of taking action on mitigation in terms of like cutting
pollution from all the existing industries that will be cheaper,
investing in all that new stuff, which is very expensive,
then dealing with the consequences. But if you let warming
(04:48):
get above two degrees, this is how finely balanced this
stuff is, that the costs of dealing with all that,
the physical impacts of climate change, just blow out of control,
and we won't be able to rein pollution in to
stop global warming just rising exponentially up towards three degrees,
which brings even worse effects.
S1 (05:08):
Right? Okay. And so do we know how the government
actually arrives at whatever target number it's going to be
releasing later this week? Like, do we know how the
government gets there and what determines it?
S3 (05:18):
Uh, Sam? Yeah. We do. There's the serious answer, which
is the government, under federal regulations, it's required to take
advice from an independent authority. Um, as Bianca mentioned, the
climate change authority, they do a lot of diligent work.
They put out a report with all its reasonings of
how ambitious the government can be in its emission cuts
and where it can get to. And then the government
(05:40):
responds to that and sets its target. But color me cynical,
you know, I'm sure you'll be shocked to hear that
the government also weighs heavily the politics of setting the target.
So who's going to be affected, what the punters will think,
what their political opponents will make of it, and whether
it's going to hurt their chances at upcoming elections, basically.
(06:00):
So there's a balancing act for the government here in
terms of credibly responding to the science, meeting their regulatory
obligations that have been set for themselves in responding to
the independent authority, and also weighing the politics of it,
which is a key aim for this government, making sure
they're not spending too much political capital and able to
(06:20):
bring the public along on the journey with them.
S1 (06:23):
Well, Mike, just to stick with you for a moment,
I mean, so how would we reduce our emissions to
reach whatever goal it is that the government sets? Like,
is it more electric cars? Is it less fossil fuels?
You know, what is it because it was just three
months ago that Albanese very controversially gave preliminary approval to
extend the life of the North West Shelf project, which
is one of Australia's biggest fossil fuel developments, and that's
(06:46):
to extend it for another 45 years until 2070. So
that would seem to be going in the opposite direction
to reducing emissions. So what's going on here?
S3 (06:55):
Yeah. Look another good question. The simplest way to explain
it in terms of how are we going to get
to this goal by 2035, is to say, if you
had asked me that question ten years ago, the answer
would present a real big challenge for the government. But
it would be simple. It would be to say, we
are going to replace all the coal fired power in
our electricity grid in Australia. We have heaps of coal
(07:17):
plants all across the country. They're very dirty. They create
a lot of greenhouse gas pollution and we replace it
with clean wind and clean solar power. But we're doing
that at a pace already in Australia. So that is
going to do the heavy lifting over the next five
years to get Australia to its 2030 target, that renewable rollout.
(07:38):
What we're going to do from 2030 to 2035 is
a whole nother kettle of fish that's talking about, yes,
continuing on renewables and replacing coal, but doing a lot more.
And that's where new impacted players across the investment community
and in the economy come in. So we're talking about,
you know, it looks like mining would have to reduce
(08:00):
further their emissions. Manufacturing farmers are always a hot button
topic because they you know we're talking about potentially. Do
we reduce the size of the cattle herd in Australia
because they create a lot of greenhouse gas emissions? Also,
individuals in the community, we want to increase the rollout
of electric cars. So more policies there to switch from
(08:21):
petrol cars. That's it in a nutshell. It's sort of
how do we get beyond 2030 to 2035? We're looking
at a lot more than just renewables.
S2 (08:31):
And can I just say there, Mike, that every single
climate scientist in Australia and every environment group in Australia
has come out absolutely, unanimously saying they cannot believe that
the government would extend the life of Woodside's north west
shelf extension to 2070, potentially to 2030 or 2035. But
(08:52):
to extend it on principle up to 2070 is, um,
is something else.
S1 (08:59):
Well, Bianca, on that point, I wanted to ask you
about what it is that our leading scientists, environmentalists, are
saying in particular about the target that the government you know,
is going to announce probably by the time this episode
airs on Thursday. So let's just say that the government
does announce a goal of reducing the emissions by 65%.
How effective is that even going to be at reducing
(09:20):
the impact of climate change?
S2 (09:23):
Well, look, 65% would put us at about the mid-range
of announced targets. Countries have come out with so far
for 2035. You've got Brazil offering a target of 59
to 67%. You've got Canada 45 to 50%. Japan 60%.
New Zealand 51 to 55% on 2005 levels. And then
(09:46):
you've got the United Kingdom on 81%, which is the
world leader so far, closely followed by Norway, 70 to 75%.
So it would put us at about the mid-range. But
there is also an expectation under the Paris Agreement that
the bigger emitters do more and go further than the
smaller countries.
S1 (10:12):
We'll be right back. And Mike, over to you. Are
there any other considerations, you know, that the government do
you think is weighing. I mean, you mentioned, of course,
concerns from business and farmers. Are there any other major
factors that they'd be weighing?
S3 (10:30):
Yes there is. There's one thing we haven't talked about
yet and that's credibility. So in terms of how is
the government actually going at the moment in terms of
reducing emissions? And they if they're going to announce an
extremely ambitious target, for example, for 2035, then they will
come under increased scrutiny on their existing record. And it's unfortunately,
(10:54):
it's it's a very hard thing to do is to
cut emissions from an industrialised economy like Australia. We have
cut emissions about 30% over the past decade or so,
and it's not reducing rapidly. year by year at the moment.
On the current trend, if we continued on the sort
of the current rate of emissions reduction, we'd cut emissions
(11:17):
about 35% by 2030. So the government is counting on
an explosion from here on in, in the amount of
renewable energy in the grid, as we discussed before, to
replace coal plants. And then it would be counting on
an explosion of green activity across the economy to replace
dirty manufacturing and smelters and diesel in in transport from
(11:40):
2030 to 2035 to get to a more ambitious target.
Even 65% in that practical sense is going to be
very ambitious. So that's that's it in a nutshell, is
that's what the government will also weigh amongst the science. And,
you know, Australia doing its fair share in the global
goal under the Paris Agreement to limit climate change. It's
(12:02):
it's got to be able to deliver tangible results. And
it's so far it's proved slow going. The government's underwriting
a lot of investment in renewables at the moment, because
private capital isn't flowing as fast as they would like.
As one sort of tiny example of the hurdles that
you can hit. So, um, there's there's a lot of
(12:23):
considerations that go into this, not just the climate science
for the government.
S2 (12:27):
I think it's also safe to say, though, that once
government sets an ambitious target, you know, the business community
will follow. They will have certainty, they'll have direction, and
they'll be able to invest where they can see the
future of this country going.
S1 (12:41):
Interesting. And, Bianca, I wanted to ask you about what other,
I guess, factors our government is having to weigh up
in terms of obviously, how we reduce our emissions. It
isn't just our own climate going bananas. It's also about
our relations with nations in the Pacific, isn't it, because
you've been looking into the impact of emissions there? Why
(13:02):
is this important for us?
S2 (13:04):
Yeah, it's been a really interesting week in Australian climate news.
So last week Australia gave the final tick of approval
to Woodside's North West shelf expansion that came as the
Pacific Islands Forum was bringing together leaders from all over
the Pacific, including countries like Kiribati, that are absolutely on
(13:25):
the front line of climate change. This is a country
that has a number of low lying islands, a large
number of low lying islands, some of which are now
uninhabitable or crops can't be grown because the salt water
is literally leeching up through the ground and rendering the
land unusable and unlivable. So this is an existential crisis
(13:46):
for a lot of people in our region. It's not
just a theoretical exercise. I spoke to the former president
of Kiribati, Anote Tong, who told me that Australia was
not being a good friend in the way it's conducting
itself in this area. I also spoke with Torres Strait
elder Aunty Mcrose Elu, who said that if Australia wants
(14:06):
a good relationship with the Torres Strait or the Pacific,
they better have plans to be brave and announce a
science based target and stop approving new fossil fuel projects. Otherwise,
we all face a death sentence.
S1 (14:18):
And Mike, just one quick question on that North West
Shelf project, because we know that the Climate Council has
said that the decision to extend that would lock in
more than 4 billion tonnes of climate pollution and would
haunt the Albanese government. So why do you reckon it's
made this decision to to extend it?
S3 (14:35):
Well, first thing to be said, Sam, is most of
the emissions generated by that project will be counted towards
the tallies of other countries that import the gas that
that project generates. So we're talking about Korea and Japan
that will burn it for for electricity. But it's also
on the domestic front, a sign of the pragmatic approach
(14:55):
that the Albanese government is taking, some would say, cynical
approach that the government is taking to climate action where
they don't want to be seen as anti-industry, they want
to encourage foreign investment or, in Woodside's case, investment into projects.
They don't want to be criticised as Industry, but they're
very aware that a lot of labor's rusted on. Voters
(15:17):
across the country do want ambitious climate action. We've seen
that repeated at election after election, and yet they still
feel hamstrung by the fact that the North West Shelf
is a very contentious issue in Western Australia, a state
that is crucial to Labor's chances at every federal election.
And they just weren't willing to ban such a big
(15:38):
project that would have added so much to the economy
of Western Australia, even though there is a big push
from some of their members to do so.
S1 (15:46):
And of course, the other country that is sort of
unspoken in all of this that we need to talk
about is the United States. We know that one of
Donald Trump's first acts as president was, of course, to
withdraw from the Paris Agreement. So, Mike, I'm going to
go to you first. What's the impact been of Trump's
total abandonment of climate action?
S3 (16:05):
It's created a new political paradigm not to go too
far into the weeds, Sam, but we've seen in Australia
that the federal coalition, the nationals and the Liberal Party
are now openly talking about the potential of their ditching
their commitment to reaching net zero emissions. Many MPs talking
down the need for ambitious climate action, and that's been
(16:28):
repeated across the globe. And in a more tangible sense,
there's now new risks to the flow of global capital.
I mean, it's a hifalutin phrase, but the amount of
investment that the US sucks in as as the leading
economy in the world into to new technology is huge.
And Donald Trump is halting offshore wind leases with presidential decree.
(16:51):
He's calling for drill, baby drill and encouraging the US
domestic oil industry to, you know, get more supplies into
the local economy. Obviously, it's bad news for green investments
and renewable energy. So it's a bit of a swing moment.
We we see the rest of the world are still
forging ahead with their climate targets. No one else has
(17:11):
pulled out of the Paris Agreement. but we're waiting to
see if there is an international slowdown long term in
renewable energy investments, for one. You know, it sort of
has been a bit of a downward trend over the
past year in Australia in renewable energy investments. And we're
just hoping that ticks up. But it's a bit of
a wait and see right now.
S2 (17:33):
Just to follow up on what Mike was saying, I think,
you know, the trend is there and it's established. You
can just look at China and look at the level
of investment that that absolute superpower is pumping into renewable
energy and into the transition. I think, you know, the
writing's on the wall. Climate change is being taken very
seriously across the globe. The US has pulled out of
(17:54):
Paris before and then come back with a new president.
There's no reason to think that that won't happen again
this time around. It might be harder this time or
the next time, but I do think that there is
a clear trend, and Australia has a clear aim to
be on the right side of history on this one.
S1 (18:11):
Well, thank you so much, Mike and Bianca, for your time.
S2 (18:15):
Thank you. Sam.
S3 (18:16):
Thanks, Sam.
S1 (18:23):
Today's episode of The Morning Edition was produced by Kai Wong.
Our executive producer is Tammy Mills. Our head of audio
is Tom McKendrick. The Morning Edition is a production of
The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald. If you enjoy
the show and want more of our journalism, subscribe to
our newspapers today. It's the best way to support what
(18:43):
we do. Search The Age or smh.com.au. Subscribe and sign
up for our newsletter to receive a comprehensive summary of
the day's most important news, analysis and insights in your
inbox every day. Links are in the show. Notes. I'm
Samantha Selinger. Morris. This is the morning edition. Thanks for listening.
From the newsrooms of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.
This is the morning edition. I'm Samantha Salinger Morris. It's Thursday,
September 18th. A flurry of numbers relating to climate change
have been tossed around all week. But what do they mean? Today,
(00:22):
environment and climate reporter Bianca Hall and climate and energy
correspondent Mike Foley on what impact the government's climate emissions
target for 2035 will have on all of us. Welcome,
Mike and Bianca.
S2 (00:43):
Thanks for having us.
S3 (00:44):
Hi, Sam.
S1 (00:45):
Okay. I'm so glad to have you both here. I
find this topic very confusing, and I know you're going
to help us out. So, Bianca, let's start with you.
Can you just tell us why are we even talking
about the climate now? This is a subject that seems
to be front and centre in the news every now
and again. Now it's back. Why?
S2 (01:03):
Well, this is definitely a climate week. We're talking about
very little, but climate. This week, Australia's national climate risk
assessment was released. It was pretty dark reading. It was
pretty bleak.
S4 (01:16):
Cascading. Compounding. Concurrent. That's how the Australian Climate Service describes
the impact of climate change on every community in our country.
S2 (01:29):
It predicts catastrophic outcomes for Australian health, society and the
economy if global temperatures continue to climb. And we had
a memorable quote from environs Kimberley executive director Martin Pritchard,
who said places like Kimberley's Fitzroy Crossing, which already has
67 days a year over 40 degrees, will be like
(01:51):
a place from a mad Max movie if this comes
to fruition.
S4 (01:56):
There isn't an Australian community that isn't impacted by climate
change going forward, and there isn't an Australian individual for
whom those impacts won't be real and material.
S2 (02:07):
So this comes as we're expecting Chris Bowen, the climate
change minister, to release Australia's 2030 climate targets. This is
the number that we want to get to. If we
are to have a hope of limiting global warming to
1.5 degrees. It's part of our responsibility under the Paris
Agreement to update our targets for 2035. We already have
(02:30):
targets out for 2030. So far, about 31 countries out
of more than 220 have announced their 2035 emissions targets.
And this week, it is Australia's turn.
S1 (02:48):
Okay, so, Bianca, I was hoping you could, first of all,
take us through what the Paris Agreement actually is. And
then I guess what emissions targets actually are.
S2 (02:58):
Okay. So the Paris Agreement just stepping back is an
internationally binding agreement which took effect in 2016. There's hundreds
of countries worldwide that have signed up to it. Broadly,
it aims to limit warming to two degrees, although it's
generally understood now that 1.5 would be far preferable. So
Australia's existing targets are for us to decrease our emissions
(03:20):
by 43% based on 2005 levels by 2030. And the
government's energy department in June said we're on track, hopefully
to hit 42.7% by 2030.
S1 (03:33):
And so, Mike, just just quickly to you. Can you
just tell us why would it be better if we're
aiming for limiting warming to 1.5 degrees as opposed to
two degrees? Like what does that mean?
S3 (03:45):
Yeah, that's that's a great question, Sam, because it goes
to the heart of the fundamental aim of the Paris
Agreement and all the the countries around the world that
have signed up to it, and that limiting global warming
to 1.5 degrees is the sort of the paramount aim
of the Paris Agreement. and it was set that target
(04:06):
by the United Nations, assembled this crack team of hundreds
and hundreds of scientists around the world to do the
peer reviewed science and boil it down. What they determined
is that if you limit global warming to 1.5 degrees,
then that sort of limits cascading catastrophic effects, you know,
(04:26):
in terms of horrible stuff like famine and plague and drought,
food shortages all across the world, and therefore the cost
of taking action on mitigation in terms of like cutting
pollution from all the existing industries that will be cheaper,
investing in all that new stuff, which is very expensive,
then dealing with the consequences. But if you let warming
(04:48):
get above two degrees, this is how finely balanced this
stuff is, that the costs of dealing with all that,
the physical impacts of climate change, just blow out of control,
and we won't be able to rein pollution in to
stop global warming just rising exponentially up towards three degrees,
which brings even worse effects.
S1 (05:08):
Right? Okay. And so do we know how the government
actually arrives at whatever target number it's going to be
releasing later this week? Like, do we know how the
government gets there and what determines it?
S3 (05:18):
Uh, Sam? Yeah. We do. There's the serious answer, which
is the government, under federal regulations, it's required to take
advice from an independent authority. Um, as Bianca mentioned, the
climate change authority, they do a lot of diligent work.
They put out a report with all its reasonings of
how ambitious the government can be in its emission cuts
and where it can get to. And then the government
(05:40):
responds to that and sets its target. But color me cynical,
you know, I'm sure you'll be shocked to hear that
the government also weighs heavily the politics of setting the target.
So who's going to be affected, what the punters will think,
what their political opponents will make of it, and whether
it's going to hurt their chances at upcoming elections, basically.
(06:00):
So there's a balancing act for the government here in
terms of credibly responding to the science, meeting their regulatory
obligations that have been set for themselves in responding to
the independent authority, and also weighing the politics of it,
which is a key aim for this government, making sure
they're not spending too much political capital and able to
(06:20):
bring the public along on the journey with them.
S1 (06:23):
Well, Mike, just to stick with you for a moment,
I mean, so how would we reduce our emissions to
reach whatever goal it is that the government sets? Like,
is it more electric cars? Is it less fossil fuels?
You know, what is it because it was just three
months ago that Albanese very controversially gave preliminary approval to
extend the life of the North West Shelf project, which
is one of Australia's biggest fossil fuel developments, and that's
(06:46):
to extend it for another 45 years until 2070. So
that would seem to be going in the opposite direction
to reducing emissions. So what's going on here?
S3 (06:55):
Yeah. Look another good question. The simplest way to explain
it in terms of how are we going to get
to this goal by 2035, is to say, if you
had asked me that question ten years ago, the answer
would present a real big challenge for the government. But
it would be simple. It would be to say, we
are going to replace all the coal fired power in
our electricity grid in Australia. We have heaps of coal
(07:17):
plants all across the country. They're very dirty. They create
a lot of greenhouse gas pollution and we replace it
with clean wind and clean solar power. But we're doing
that at a pace already in Australia. So that is
going to do the heavy lifting over the next five
years to get Australia to its 2030 target, that renewable rollout.
(07:38):
What we're going to do from 2030 to 2035 is
a whole nother kettle of fish that's talking about, yes,
continuing on renewables and replacing coal, but doing a lot more.
And that's where new impacted players across the investment community
and in the economy come in. So we're talking about,
you know, it looks like mining would have to reduce
(08:00):
further their emissions. Manufacturing farmers are always a hot button
topic because they you know we're talking about potentially. Do
we reduce the size of the cattle herd in Australia
because they create a lot of greenhouse gas emissions? Also,
individuals in the community, we want to increase the rollout
of electric cars. So more policies there to switch from
(08:21):
petrol cars. That's it in a nutshell. It's sort of
how do we get beyond 2030 to 2035? We're looking
at a lot more than just renewables.
S2 (08:31):
And can I just say there, Mike, that every single
climate scientist in Australia and every environment group in Australia
has come out absolutely, unanimously saying they cannot believe that
the government would extend the life of Woodside's north west
shelf extension to 2070, potentially to 2030 or 2035. But
(08:52):
to extend it on principle up to 2070 is, um,
is something else.
S1 (08:59):
Well, Bianca, on that point, I wanted to ask you
about what it is that our leading scientists, environmentalists, are
saying in particular about the target that the government you know,
is going to announce probably by the time this episode
airs on Thursday. So let's just say that the government
does announce a goal of reducing the emissions by 65%.
How effective is that even going to be at reducing
(09:20):
the impact of climate change?
S2 (09:23):
Well, look, 65% would put us at about the mid-range
of announced targets. Countries have come out with so far
for 2035. You've got Brazil offering a target of 59
to 67%. You've got Canada 45 to 50%. Japan 60%.
New Zealand 51 to 55% on 2005 levels. And then
(09:46):
you've got the United Kingdom on 81%, which is the
world leader so far, closely followed by Norway, 70 to 75%.
So it would put us at about the mid-range. But
there is also an expectation under the Paris Agreement that
the bigger emitters do more and go further than the
smaller countries.
S1 (10:12):
We'll be right back. And Mike, over to you. Are
there any other considerations, you know, that the government do
you think is weighing. I mean, you mentioned, of course,
concerns from business and farmers. Are there any other major
factors that they'd be weighing?
S3 (10:30):
Yes there is. There's one thing we haven't talked about
yet and that's credibility. So in terms of how is
the government actually going at the moment in terms of
reducing emissions? And they if they're going to announce an
extremely ambitious target, for example, for 2035, then they will
come under increased scrutiny on their existing record. And it's unfortunately,
(10:54):
it's it's a very hard thing to do is to
cut emissions from an industrialised economy like Australia. We have
cut emissions about 30% over the past decade or so,
and it's not reducing rapidly. year by year at the moment.
On the current trend, if we continued on the sort
of the current rate of emissions reduction, we'd cut emissions
(11:17):
about 35% by 2030. So the government is counting on
an explosion from here on in, in the amount of
renewable energy in the grid, as we discussed before, to
replace coal plants. And then it would be counting on
an explosion of green activity across the economy to replace
dirty manufacturing and smelters and diesel in in transport from
(11:40):
2030 to 2035 to get to a more ambitious target.
Even 65% in that practical sense is going to be
very ambitious. So that's that's it in a nutshell, is
that's what the government will also weigh amongst the science. And,
you know, Australia doing its fair share in the global
goal under the Paris Agreement to limit climate change. It's
(12:02):
it's got to be able to deliver tangible results. And
it's so far it's proved slow going. The government's underwriting
a lot of investment in renewables at the moment, because
private capital isn't flowing as fast as they would like.
As one sort of tiny example of the hurdles that
you can hit. So, um, there's there's a lot of
(12:23):
considerations that go into this, not just the climate science
for the government.
S2 (12:27):
I think it's also safe to say, though, that once
government sets an ambitious target, you know, the business community
will follow. They will have certainty, they'll have direction, and
they'll be able to invest where they can see the
future of this country going.
S1 (12:41):
Interesting. And, Bianca, I wanted to ask you about what other,
I guess, factors our government is having to weigh up
in terms of obviously, how we reduce our emissions. It
isn't just our own climate going bananas. It's also about
our relations with nations in the Pacific, isn't it, because
you've been looking into the impact of emissions there? Why
(13:02):
is this important for us?
S2 (13:04):
Yeah, it's been a really interesting week in Australian climate news.
So last week Australia gave the final tick of approval
to Woodside's North West shelf expansion that came as the
Pacific Islands Forum was bringing together leaders from all over
the Pacific, including countries like Kiribati, that are absolutely on
(13:25):
the front line of climate change. This is a country
that has a number of low lying islands, a large
number of low lying islands, some of which are now
uninhabitable or crops can't be grown because the salt water
is literally leeching up through the ground and rendering the
land unusable and unlivable. So this is an existential crisis
(13:46):
for a lot of people in our region. It's not
just a theoretical exercise. I spoke to the former president
of Kiribati, Anote Tong, who told me that Australia was
not being a good friend in the way it's conducting
itself in this area. I also spoke with Torres Strait
elder Aunty Mcrose Elu, who said that if Australia wants
(14:06):
a good relationship with the Torres Strait or the Pacific,
they better have plans to be brave and announce a
science based target and stop approving new fossil fuel projects. Otherwise,
we all face a death sentence.
S1 (14:18):
And Mike, just one quick question on that North West
Shelf project, because we know that the Climate Council has
said that the decision to extend that would lock in
more than 4 billion tonnes of climate pollution and would
haunt the Albanese government. So why do you reckon it's
made this decision to to extend it?
S3 (14:35):
Well, first thing to be said, Sam, is most of
the emissions generated by that project will be counted towards
the tallies of other countries that import the gas that
that project generates. So we're talking about Korea and Japan
that will burn it for for electricity. But it's also
on the domestic front, a sign of the pragmatic approach
(14:55):
that the Albanese government is taking, some would say, cynical
approach that the government is taking to climate action where
they don't want to be seen as anti-industry, they want
to encourage foreign investment or, in Woodside's case, investment into projects.
They don't want to be criticised as Industry, but they're
very aware that a lot of labor's rusted on. Voters
(15:17):
across the country do want ambitious climate action. We've seen
that repeated at election after election, and yet they still
feel hamstrung by the fact that the North West Shelf
is a very contentious issue in Western Australia, a state
that is crucial to Labor's chances at every federal election.
And they just weren't willing to ban such a big
(15:38):
project that would have added so much to the economy
of Western Australia, even though there is a big push
from some of their members to do so.
S1 (15:46):
And of course, the other country that is sort of
unspoken in all of this that we need to talk
about is the United States. We know that one of
Donald Trump's first acts as president was, of course, to
withdraw from the Paris Agreement. So, Mike, I'm going to
go to you first. What's the impact been of Trump's
total abandonment of climate action?
S3 (16:05):
It's created a new political paradigm not to go too
far into the weeds, Sam, but we've seen in Australia
that the federal coalition, the nationals and the Liberal Party
are now openly talking about the potential of their ditching
their commitment to reaching net zero emissions. Many MPs talking
down the need for ambitious climate action, and that's been
(16:28):
repeated across the globe. And in a more tangible sense,
there's now new risks to the flow of global capital.
I mean, it's a hifalutin phrase, but the amount of
investment that the US sucks in as as the leading
economy in the world into to new technology is huge.
And Donald Trump is halting offshore wind leases with presidential decree.
(16:51):
He's calling for drill, baby drill and encouraging the US
domestic oil industry to, you know, get more supplies into
the local economy. Obviously, it's bad news for green investments
and renewable energy. So it's a bit of a swing moment.
We we see the rest of the world are still
forging ahead with their climate targets. No one else has
(17:11):
pulled out of the Paris Agreement. but we're waiting to
see if there is an international slowdown long term in
renewable energy investments, for one. You know, it sort of
has been a bit of a downward trend over the
past year in Australia in renewable energy investments. And we're
just hoping that ticks up. But it's a bit of
a wait and see right now.
S2 (17:33):
Just to follow up on what Mike was saying, I think,
you know, the trend is there and it's established. You
can just look at China and look at the level
of investment that that absolute superpower is pumping into renewable
energy and into the transition. I think, you know, the
writing's on the wall. Climate change is being taken very
seriously across the globe. The US has pulled out of
(17:54):
Paris before and then come back with a new president.
There's no reason to think that that won't happen again
this time around. It might be harder this time or
the next time, but I do think that there is
a clear trend, and Australia has a clear aim to
be on the right side of history on this one.
S1 (18:11):
Well, thank you so much, Mike and Bianca, for your time.
S2 (18:15):
Thank you. Sam.
S3 (18:16):
Thanks, Sam.
S1 (18:23):
Today's episode of The Morning Edition was produced by Kai Wong.
Our executive producer is Tammy Mills. Our head of audio
is Tom McKendrick. The Morning Edition is a production of
The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald. If you enjoy
the show and want more of our journalism, subscribe to
our newspapers today. It's the best way to support what
(18:43):
we do. Search The Age or smh.com.au. Subscribe and sign
up for our newsletter to receive a comprehensive summary of
the day's most important news, analysis and insights in your
inbox every day. Links are in the show. Notes. I'm
Samantha Selinger. Morris. This is the morning edition. Thanks for listening.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.