The Victorian government’s climate pollution targets

Educational, Recommendation

“79 per cent of Victorians would be proud to live in a state that is leading the way on climate change.”
~ Findings of a survey by Sustainability Victoria who in 2016 commissioned Wallis Market and Social Reseach to interview 3,333 Victorians



In April 2018, the Victorian government ran a public submission process in its preparation to set greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for the years 2025 and 2030. Below is what I wrote and submitted on www.engage.vic.gov.au


Mik Aidt’s target recommendation: 75 per cent lower by 2030

In my submission I recommend a 75 per cent reduction by 2030. Here’s how I got to that figure:

According to the official greenhouse gas accounts, Victoria’s climate pollution was 128 million tonnes of CO2e in 2005. This figure is being used by government as a so-called ‘2005-baseline’.

In 2016 Victoria emitted 114 million tonnes CO2e.

If we project the current development, where Victoria is reducing its emissions by roughly five per cent per year, then we can assume that by 2021 that figure will be down to around 100 million tonnes.

With a 10 per cent per year reduction from then on, we will be down to emissions of 53 million tonnes by 2025, 31 million tonnes by 2030, and 10 million tonnes by 2040.

What that means in terms of carbon footprint per capita is that by 2025, Victorians will then finally be where the citizens of the United Kingdom are already today with each citizen having an average carbon footprint of 7.5 tonnes per year.

When factoring in that the population of Victoria is projected to continue growing, that means that the per-capita footprint will be down to four tonnes by 2030, and close to one tonne by 2040.

31 million tonnes by 2030 compared to the 2005-baseline of 128 million is a 75 per cent reduction. Hence my 75 per cent by 2030 recommendation.

Milestones on the pathway to zero carbon




Crunching the numbers to cut the carbon

We need to stop the confusing use of percentages in relation to a specific year. Instead, when we all express our results and targets in carbon-tonnes per capita per year, the figures suddenly become transparent and comparable. The use of percentages is if not a scam then certainly a cynical use of statistics by those people who are trying to either protect their vested economic interests or to protect their vested political interests with the purpose of creating incomparable data and a confused public.

Let’s for a moment talk concrete kilogrammes and tonnes of carbon emissions in the air instead of blurry percentages.

Australian greenhouse gas emissions in 2005 were around 600 million tonnes CO2e. The so-called carbon tax got that annual figure down to 525 million tonnes in 2015, but already in 2016 it was back up at almost 605 million tonnes CO2e. In the same period, the population had grown from 20.4 to 24 million, so divided up per capita, our individual CO2e-pollution level actually fell from 29 to 25 tonnes per year.

A million tonnes is the same as what experts often refer to as “megatonnes”. The little “e” after CO2 means “equivalents” – which means that other greenhouse gasses than CO2 have been included in that figure as well, for instance methane, but they have then had their weight recalculated to what they would have weighted if they were CO2.

In round figures, the current federal government wants to get the national total of 600 million tonnes down to around 450 million tonnes CO2e per year by 2030. With Victoria responsible for roughly a fifth of the country’s emissions, that translates to that the federal government would expect Victoria’s annual emissions at a level of around 90 million tonnes by 2030.

The population of Australia is projected to have grown to 30 million by that time, so that is the same as saying that the federal government is expecting our individual footprint to be on average 15 tonnes per person per year by 2030.

Why 15 tonnes per person by 2030 is a lousy target can be understood by looking towards Europe where citizens in countries such as United Kingdom, Denmark and Sweden already today have a footprint around 7 tonnes per year. The average Indian citizen has a carbon footprint of 2.3 tonnes.


The individual carbon footprint
Victoria’s 2005-baseline was 128 million tonnes CO2e, and the state’s total emissions in 2016 were 114 million tonnes CO2e. That’s 11 per cent less. In concrete measures, it is a reduction of 14 million tonnes over a decade.

Divided on six million Victorians, it means each Victorian had an average carbon footprint of around 19 tonnes of CO2e in 2016.

The biggest chunck of that 19 tonnes footprint comes from buying stuff – manufacture, transport and sale of goods – which adds up to around 5 tonnes of emissions per year. Second-largest chunk of 4.3 tonnes is emissions that can’t be directly attributed to any individual: government services such as construction and operation of roads, airports, hospitals and schools plus emissions from mining. In comparison, the food you eat is responsible for 3.3 tonnes, your residential electricity 1,9 tonnes, local travel and transport 2,5 tonnes and long-distance travel with airplanes 1.2 tonnes.

Which is why your submission to the Victorian government is important. As citizens we can start cycling more and put up solar on the roof, but we can’t just “go it alone”. The government will have to do its fair share and start chopping down that ‘governmental chunck’ of over 4 tonnes per person.


Our official UN goal: 33 percent risk of failure
The United Nation’s International Climate Change Panel estimates that in order to have two-third chance of staying below the 2°C degrees global temperature rise, we need to restrict our total emissions to 2,900,000 million tonnes . Humanity has already emitted 2,100,000 million tonnes into the atmosphere, leaving a so-called “carbon budget” of around 800,000 million tonnes , which the politicians who met in Paris in 2015 agreed on would be a reasonable target, because they quietly accept that this leaves us with 33 per cent chance of NOT staying below the 2“C degrees.

According to the I.P.P.C., if we wanted a 90 per cent chance of staying below 2°C, we have already blown our budget.

Even if we were to accept the Paris Agreement’s risky “budget”, and then hold it up against that we are 7.5 billion people in the world, the Paris Agreement means that the budget for every individual on the planet is around 150 tonnes of CO2e.

The average Australian, American and Canadian currently have carbon footprints of around 20 tonnes per year. In other words, if we continue polluting at the same level as we do now, year after year, the average Australian, American and Canadian citizens will have blown their budgets in just seven more years – at around 2025. We’d then have to stop burning any more coal, oil and gas right there, from one year to the next.

For the Europeans it will take over 20 years – they have until 2038-2040 until their budget is burned, whereas the average Indian citizen can go on burning for another 65 years – until 2083.

The real problem with the underlying premise of the Paris Climate Agreement is that a 2°C degrees world does not provide us with a safe climate and a world that looks as we know it today. Already now with 1.1°C degrees of average warming, the climate is unstable and unsafe. We have locked in dangerous climate processes and irreversible feedback loops that will continue for centuries, even if we were able to stop our air pollution over night.



Footnote about Victoria’s emissions
In Victoria, the brown coal-fired power station Hazelwood emitted about 15 million tonnes CO2e per year. It was closed in March 2017, so if this closure had been replaced with renewable energy sources, it could had represented a 13 per cent reduction of Victoria’s annual emissions.

In 2017, the Victorian government asked the state’s energy retailers to support actions that reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 5.9 million tonnes. By 2020, that target will have increased to 6.5 million tonnes of greenhouse gasses. (More about the Victorian Energy Upgrades Program on www.victorianenergysaver.vic.gov.au/victorian-energy-upgrades )

BZE’s Australian Local Government Climate Review 2018


Emission reduction targets podcast

» Dirt Radio at 3CR Melbourne – 10 April 2018:
Everything you always wanted to know about emission reduction targets, and a climate budget, but were afraid to ask


Values and basic principles

As a society, we have been procrastinating too long. Every tonne of climate pollution we release from now on will eventually have to be drawn down from the atmosphere.

Both the current national emissions reduction target and the Climate Change Authority’s recommendations are too low to meet our fair share commitment to the international community. The federal government’s insufficient level of ambition is therefore unacceptable. The global Paris Climate Agreement’s commitment to hold global temperature rise as close to 1.5°C as possible requires that we stop polluting the atmosphere within the next decade. All while we need start getting serious about sequestering carbon out of the atmosphere.

Victoria’s climate policy should stand on a foundation of two values and basic principles:

1) Citizens’ right to a safe climate: Climate change is a global phenomena and we all share the same atmosphere. Our level of action on emissions reduction and the pace of our actions should match the level that once implemented by all governments will secure a safe climate. The Paris Climate Agreement is a step in that direction, but is far too unambitious to save us from a long range of climate-induced disruptions and losses.

2) Taking a fair share of the load in a planned and transparent manner: Australians are 0.3% of the world’s population, but we produce 1.8% of the world’s greenhouse gasses. How is that considered reasonable behaviour? As a member of the Australian Commonwealth and of the global community, Victoria should lift its fair share of the load as we all need to reduce our levels of air pollution quickly. Four out of five Victorians have pledged that they are ready to take their fair share, according to Wallis Market and Social Research’s interviews with 3,333 Victorians in 2016, but unfortunately everyone is also aware that individual actions won’t have much effect unless the Victorian government does the same. The same logic counts at country-level. No person, state or country can solve this issue alone.


We understand and pay respect to these principles when it comes to pollution of water and land. It is time for the Victorian Government to take the step to protect our common atmosphere in a similar manner.

One problem with the Paris Agreement’s targets is that even if the planet stays below a 2°C degrees average temperature rise by 2100, this holds no guarantees for what the world is going to look like another 100 or 500 years later, since irreversible melting of glaciers and collapse of polar ice-shelfs already has started. Not even massive drawdown of carbon is going to bring that melted ice back.

In response to the evolving and potentially catastrophic warming tipping points with melting of ice, changing of gulf stream and thawing of permafrost, we don’t even have a choice. We must transition to zero carbon in maximum speed.

Waiting until every other nation in the world has completed their transition will only worsen our situation. More about the dangerous climate tipping point problems we are confronted with if you scroll down on this blogpost, www.climatesafety.info/carbonrebellion.



State government seeking input from the community

17 questions about the biggest threats to the future of the Victorian State

The Victorian Government has identified climate change as one of the biggest threats to the future of the State, with warmer and drier conditions projected to have negative consequences for health, infrastructure, agriculture, water, biodiversity, and alpine and coastal areas.

The Victorian Climate Change Act 2017 responds to this challenge by establishing a legislative framework to drive action to achieve a net zero emissions, climate-resilient Victorian community and economy by 2050.

The Act requires the Victorian Government to set five yearly interim greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets, starting in 2021, to set the State on a pathway to net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

The Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, Lily D’Ambrosio, has appointed an Independent Expert Panel to provide advice on the first two sets of interim targets for 2021-25 and 2026-30. The Panel members are:

• The Hon Greg Combet AM (Chair);
• Dr Penny Whetton; and
• Dr Lorraine Stephenson.

The Panel is required to present its final report to the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change by 22 February 2019. Further details of the Independent Expert Panel including their terms of reference can be found at www.climatechange.vic.gov.au/reducing-emissions/interim-targets

The Panel is seeking input from the community to inform its advice to the Minister. You are invited to read the Panel’s issues paper and answer the questions below. This consultation closes on 1 May 2018.

www.engage.vic.gov.au/climate-change-targets-2021-2030





Mik Aidt’s submission: Victoria’s emissions reduction targets and trajectories

The Panel is required to recommend one or more interim emissions reduction targets for 2021-2025 and for 2026-2030, and to provide advice on emissions trajectories for Victoria to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. Section 7 of the issues paper provides more information on targets and trajectories.

1a. Should Victoria’s interim emissions reduction targets relate to a national reference point?

No

2. What would you recommend Victoria’s emissions reduction targets be for 2021-25 and 2026-30, and why?

58 per cent by 2025.
75 per cent by 2030.

Victoria’s emissions reduction targets must be based on the scientific evidence about what is needed to prevent dangerous climate change. In order to do our fair share of achieving the Paris Agreement’s goal of keeping global warming to 1.5°C degrees, we have to reduce our emissions by 100% by 2050.

Another way to look at it is that with 7.5 billion people in the world, the Paris Agreement means that the carbon budget for every individual on the planet is around 150 tonnes of CO2e. Considering that each Victorian had a carbon footprint of around 19 tonnes CO2e in 2016, we will have burned our carbon budget long before 2030. Targets should be easy to communicate and remember.

A reduction of five per cent per year up til 2020, and then 10 per cent annually from then on, will result in a reduction of Victoria’s emissions with 28% below 2005 levels by 2020.
53% by 2024.
75% by 2030.
85% by 2035.
90% by 2040.

That would seem like a reasonable pathway.*


3a. Do you think a Victorian emissions budget should be used as a tool in the Panel’s analysis?

Yes


3b. If yes, what global temperature outcome should a Victorian emissions budget be consistent with?

As decribed in (2), according to the International Climate Change Panel and the UN Paris Climate Agreement, Victorians have a budget of 1,050 megatonnes CO2e left. We currently burn around 100 megatonnes a year, so the maths in that respect are simple.


3c. If yes, how should Victoria’s share of a global or Australian emissions budget be calculated?

Always in tonnes, never in percentages. And whenever possible, expressed in per capita measures. Talking about percentages instead of tonnes of CO2e for emissions and watts for electricity is a way to hide the true facts behind a smokescreen of relativity


4. What do you see as the relative advantages and disadvantages of early versus late action to reduce Victoria’s emissions to reach net zero by 2050?

As with many other things in life, in business and in international relations, there are lots of advantages in being first or up-front in a field and in showing bold leadership based on respectable values. An ambitious climate change target will increase investment in clean energy and drawdown initiatives, it will drive innovation and industrial development, all of which will create thousands of new jobs in the state. Why would Victoria want to miss out on this opportunity?


5. What lessons can be learned from other state and local governments about how to set emissions reduction targets?

Not much, I’m afraid, but I don’t know enough about this. ACT’s can be recommended.


Emissions Reduction Opportunities
There are many potential ways that Victoria’s emissions could be reduced. These include the use of renewable energy (for example solar and wind energy), carbon capture and storage, switching to low carbon or electric vehicles, increasing use of public transport, and improving the energy efficiency of our buildings, businesses and industry. Section 8 of the issues paper provides more information on emissions reduction opportunities.


6. What are the most significant opportunities and technologies for reducing emissions in Victoria during the period 2021-2030, and to reach net zero emissions by 2050?

Several of Victoria’s universities have been doing some exciting research programmes which unfortunately have been stalled or even closed because of poor funding possibilities. Some of these technological breakthroughs need to be picked up and assisted by the state government so they can be scaled up and put in commercial production.

A vision of how the Geelong region could reinvent itself as a plastic-free fiber-textile region and reestablish the former wool industry centre as Australia’s textile capital, growing, processing and producing hemp textile for clothes has some fantastic carbon sequestering potentials as well. It was described by Bernadette Uzelac, CEO, Geelong Chamber of Commerce, and Charles Kovess from Textile and Composite Industries, recently: www.climatesafety.info/thesustainablehour209

Regenerative farming methods similarly has some powerful carbon sequestering perspectives. More about that here: www.climatesafety.info/drawdownforasafeclimate


7. What are the key barriers to reducing Victoria’s emissions by 2025 and 2030?

It is one of the biggest lies of our time that renewable energy is unreliable and expensive. Transitioning Victorian houses and businesses to modern, electrical appliances and machinery run on clean, renewable energy such as wind and solar while deploying energy efficiency and new demand-management technology makes just as much sense as it did to switch from using CDs to play music over to modern mp3-based devises and distribution systems. It makes perfect sense both economically, socially and environmentally. Except to the old CD manufacturers, of course, whose business model collapsed.

Political parties with vested interests in the fossil fuel industry will tell you that there are many disadvantages of reducing emissions. The truth is that the main challenge is the human factor, and this will depend on people’s position towards change. Many of those who lose their job in the fossil fuel sector will need training and assistance so they can find new employment in other areas.


8. What further steps can the Victorian Government take to support emissions reduction opportunities and the uptake of low carbon technologies?

Show leadership that supports and inspires all local governments in Victoria to make climate action plans similar to the one Darebin City Council has produced. It was a world first when Darebin City Council adopted a community-wide Climate Emergency Plan. Now, some of Australia’s other 536 councils are getting ready to act, and in the United States, the emergency campaign has already been taken up by three local governments.

More here: www.climatesafety.info/theclimateemergencyplan


9. What lessons can be learned about reducing emissions in Victoria from actions taken in other states and countries to reduce emissions?

Look to the process in New Zealand, www.climatesafety.info/newzealandand in Sweden, where a new climate policy framework has been established – described here: www.climatesafety.info/scandinaviancarbon.

Both countries are becoming leaders in the field, and that is with the general public broadly being supportive of these often “radical” initiatives, such as banning all offshore fossil fuel exploration, etc. The world takes notice, and so should Victoria.


10. What additional infrastructure will be required to support low carbon transformation within each sector?

Transforming our energy system from dirty to clean is the easiest and most affordable option to reduce emissions in Victoria, and once the electricity in our grid is clean, it makes it easier to cut emissions from transport, industry and other sectors.Cycling could become a huge emissions-cutter with included health benefits, and requires a total rethink of how roads are constructed so that the cyclists are protected from cars. Better and faster train connections should also be prioritised.


11. What steps could the Victorian Government take to accelerate turnover of capital assets with significant emissions to deliver emissions reductions?

Follow the Norwegian model for EVs: remove taxes and fees on any products that has no combustion emissions. Add special tracks for EVs on the roads in congested areas. Add recharge stations, and make parking for EVs free. Demand that all Councils begin changing their car, truck and bus fleets to non-emitting vehicles. Norway plans to ban petrol powered cars by 2025.


12. What are the price and non-price factors influencing business and industry decisions to switch to less emissions-intensive fuels?

Price means a lot, but branding and image means more. There is a reason why companies like Google and Apple have been quick to turn their energy consumption over to 100% renewables – and that reason has nothing to do with morals, and everything to do with business and consumer awareness.The government could help a lot with creating new emissions-conscious charters/labels which would visualise this in the places where customers make their consumer choice.


13a. Should international and/or interstate carbon offsets be used to meet Victoria’s interim targets?

No.


13b. Why?

It can be a shortcut to claiming carbon neutrality that looks good for marketing purposes, but in reality gives businesses and individuals an excuse for doing less. Making someone else do the work, misses the point. Climate action is needed everywhere, both here AND there. We cannot pass on our share of this urgent task to others. For instance, instead of offsetting your frequent flights between Sydney and Melbourne, fly less and focus on making your company introduce Skype for Business while creating an entirely new meeting and conference culture within your organisation.


Impacts and Benefits
Reducing emissions may have a range of benefits and costs for different sectors of the economy, regions and communities. The potential effects of reducing emissions to meet interim targets are discussed in Section 9 of the issues paper.


14. What potential impacts and benefits of interim emissions reduction targets should the Panel consider?

Focus on the benefits. For instance, a new MIT study reports that if China follows through with its international pledge to reduce CO2 emissions, every one of its provinces will experience benefits to air quality and human health, with associated monetary savings that could offset the total cost of implementing the climate policy. The study, published in Nature Climate Change, estimates that by meeting its greenhouse gas-reduction goals, China would simultaneously improve its air quality, which would avoid a significant number of deaths due to air pollution, across every province. Fewer deaths from air pollution means a benefit for society that can be quantified — a $339 billion savings in 2030 that the researchers estimate could be about four times what it would cost China to meet its climate goals. In other words, the country’s climate policy would more than pay for itself.

More here: www.news.mit.edu/2018/study-health-benefits-will-offset-cost-china-climate-policy-0423


15. What specific regional or local issues should the Panel consider?

New job creation and up-skilling of unemployed energy workers in La Trobe Valley and other places where the fossil fuel industries close down. Victoria’s polluting coal-fired power stations are a disgrace for a state which claims to be on track with its climate change policies, but their closure should be done in a proper manner – not like it was done with Hazelwood.Create new opportunities for exchange of experiences and knowledge between cities and regions across the state, not only in the renewables sector, but also for instance in new emerging areas such as industrial hemp or regenerative farming.


Other
This is an optional section to be used if you wish to provide additional comments on issues not covered by the questions above. You can also submit resources for the Panel’s consideration or a separate written submission.


16. Please provide any additional comments below.

Re: 3c) To create overview and understanding of the challenges ahead of us, concrete figures of carbon emissions measured in tonnes per capita should be used everywhere, rather than various percentage-goals and baseline-years. Percentage reductions are at best confusing, and at worst are deliberately aimed at misleading and delaying critical decisions and remedial action, in order to protect vested financial and political interests. Optimising the choice of base year, so as to show the target in the best possible light, compounds this obfuscation. In round figures, the current federal government wants to get the national total of 600 million tonnes down to around 450 million tonnes CO2e per year by 2030. With Victoria responsible for roughly a fifth of the country’s emissions, that translates to that the federal government would expect Victoria’s annual emissions at a level of around 90 million tonnes by 2030.

More on www.climatesafety.info/victoriantargets/#language


17. Please provide any other information or evidence you believe the Panel should consider in preparing its advice on interim emissions reduction targets.

No file specified

18. If you have a separate written submission, please upload it here.

No file specified

Please tell us about yourself

First Name
Mik

Last Name
Aidt

Organisation (if applicable)
The Sustainable Hour on 94.7 The Pulse

Postcode
3220


Privacy statement
The Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) is committed to protecting personal information provided by you, in accordance with Victorian privacy laws.

DELWP values your personal information and protects your privacy in compliance with the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014 (The Act).

DELWP is collecting the personal information in your submission to administer the public consultation process and inform development of advice on interim emission reduction targets for Victoria.

The information provided in your submission will be collected by DELWP for the purpose of:

  • supporting the Independent Expert Panel to develop advice for the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change about interim targets for 2021-2030 and trajectories to net zero by 2050;
  • preparing briefings for the government about interim targets and trajectories to net zero by 2050;
  • informing the development of Victorian policies required to meet interim emission reduction targets and net zero emissions by 2050.

Your contact details may be used by DELWP or its contracted service providers under confidentiality agreements to survey you about your experience with DELWP.

DELWP may do the following with your submission, after removing your name, if you have requested anonymity, and, in all cases, removing your other personal information*:

  • publish a copy of your redacted submission on the DELWP website, or other Victorian Government website for transparency and accountability. Victorian Government websites are accessible worldwide and allow any person to view your submission;
  • quote directly from your submission in the Panel’s report or subsequent documentation;
  • make your submission available to the Independent Expert Panel and to other Victorian Government agencies.

* Personal information includes address, geographical location information, phone numbers or email addresses.

Privacy collection notice
Your submission may remain on external servers, even once DELWP has removed it from the Victorian Government website. All submissions are available to the public under the Freedom of Information Act 1982, unless you request confidential status.

If you are making comment as an organisation, your comments may be published, including the name of your organisation.

If you are making comments as an individual, the only information we will publish will include your comments. All identifying information will be removed from the submission before it’s published. If your submission includes “Sensitive Information” under the Act such as information about racial or ethical membership, political association, philosophical beliefs and/or trade union or professional association, it is understood that you consent for us to collect this data.

If you indicate that your submission should remain completely confidential, it will not be published or directly referred to.

You have the right to access and correct your personal information. Requests for access should be sent to:
Project Manager for Interim Targets, climate.change@delwp.vic.gov.au

For more information read DELWP’s Information Privacy Policy at www.delwp.vic.gov.au/privacy and the Victorian Privacy and Data Collection Act 2014.


I agree to the privacy statement

Yes

[ENDS]


Sources

• The state government’s Target Issues Paper (PDF):
www.engage.vic.gov.au/application/files/8715/2228/9280/Interim_Targets_Issues_Paper.pdf

• The Climate Change Authority’s report on Australia’s future emissions reduction targets from 2015:
http://climatechangeauthority.gov.au/sites/prod.climatechangeauthority.gov.au/files/Final-report-Australias-future-emissions-reduction-targets.pdf

• The Federal Government’s Environment and Energy Department’s emissions projections 2017: 
http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/eb62f30f-3e0f-4bfa-bb7a-c87818160fcf/files/australia-emissions-projections-2017.pdf

• The Federal Government’s Environment and Energy Department’s National Greenhouse Accounts for 2016: 
http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/a97b89a6-d103-4355-8044-3b1123e8bab6/files/state-territory-inventories-2016.pdf


Other submissions

» Geelong Sustainability’s submission


Coverage and related stories




» RenewEconomy – 2 May 2018:
Frydenberg digs in: 45% emissions target “reckless,” “extreme”
“The Climate Change Authority, the independent body set up by the Lsbor government to advice on climate policy options, recommended a country-wide target of 40 to 60 per cent below 2000 levels by 2030.”






Communicating carbon targets:

Be mindful of the language

To create overview and understanding of the challenges ahead of us, concrete figures of carbon emissions measured in tonnes per capita should be used everywhere, rather than various percentage-goals and baseline-years.

For instance, if the Victorian government would start encouraging everyone to talk about tonnes per capita per year as the common language for expressing targets and comparing targets, rather than ‘percentage reduction from year A to year B’, it would create a new world of clarity to the general public. It could open up a different conversation about emissions and emission values in society. All of sudden the figures become instantly comparable from household and business across city, municipality and national borders to international ranking list.

It may look good on paper to be saying “we are reducing emissions by 30 per cent compared to 2005-levels”, but since everyone uses different years to compare the levels by – internationally 1990 is often used as baseline, for instance – and since no one knows whether 2005 happened to be a peak year or a low point on the emissions curve, the figure in itself is useless information.

Percentage reductions are at best confusing, and at worst are deliberately aimed at misleading and delaying critical decisions and remedial action, in order to protect vested financial and political interests. Optimising the choice of base year, so as to show the target in the best possible light, compounds this obfuscation.

In round figures, the current federal government wants to get the national total of 600 million tonnes down to around 450 million tonnes CO2e per year by 2030. With Victoria responsible for roughly a fifth of the country’s emissions, that translates to that the federal government would expect Victoria’s annual emissions at a level of around 90 million tonnes by 2030.

The population of Australia is projected to have grown to 30 million by that time, so that is the same as saying that the federal government is expecting our individual footprint to be on average 15 tonnes per person per year by 2030.

Why 15 tonnes per person by 2030 is a lousy target can be understood by looking towards Europe where citizens in countries such as United Kingdom, Denmark and Sweden already today have a footprint around 7 tonnes per year. The average Indian citizen has a carbon footprint of 2.3 tonnes.

Another example: If an average Australian citizen emits 20 tonnes of CO2e a year, and an average Indian citizen emits 2 tonnes of carbon equivalents a year, and they both set targets to reduce their emissions by 50%, it would seem as if they’d be equally ambitious. But if instead we had been focused on the real measurements in tonnes, it would be clear to everyone, that while the Indian would then be emitting the remaining one tonne, the Australian would still be emitting ten times more: 10 tonnes.

What counts is the absolute weight of greenhouse gas emissions at the start, and the rate of reduction of this weight to a hopefully safe level. This is because the CO2 being released into the atmosphere will stay there for many hundreds of years.

Its climate impact therefore depends not on the emissions in any given year, but on the total amount accumulated since 1750, when atmospheric concentration began to slowly rise – and rapidly from the 1950s. Current annual emissions from human activity are around 40 billion tonnes.

Victoria’s 2005-baseline was 128 million tonnes CO2e, and the state’s total emissions in 2016 were 114 million tonnes CO2e. That’s 11 per cent less, yes, but in concrete measures, it is a reduction of 14 million tonnes over a decade. Talk about that, rather than the percentage.

Divided on six million Victorians, it means each Victorian had an average carbon footprint of around 19 tonnes of CO2e in 2016. Do we think that is okay, when comparing ourselves with our allies in Europe?

Showing leadership and vision as far as using a consistent and understandable language to describe the targets could in itself make the Victorian climate targets set a new standard which then other states and the national government could be encouraged to take inspiration from and to copy.


“Imagine, if you will, two people planning to go on a diet. One of them is a moderately fit but overweight bloke weighing, say, 100 kilograms. The other is morbidly obese, and weighs twice as much – 200 kilograms.
Time passes as they both embark on an agreed commitment to each shed 25 per cent of their weight. Now the formerly overweight bloke has reached his ideal target weight of 75 kilograms.
The obese guy has lost the same amount, in percentage terms. But he still weighs 150 kilos. He’s still grossly overweight. Clearly, for the sake of his health, he has to lose a lot more kilograms.”
~ Adapted from Mike Secombe’s article in The Saturday Paper on 22 August 2015, ‘Abbott’s smoke and mirrors before Paris climate summit’