Gregor Ptok LLB, LLM

Gregor Ptok LLB, LLM

24 April 2015

Dear Prime Minister,

Submission on Australia’s post-2020 emissions reduction target

Thank you for the opportunity of making a submission to your review of the post-2020 emissions reduction target.

When setting Australia’s post-2020 emissions reduction target, I would ask that the economic, social and environmental impacts of the target be considered in a balanced way. If trade-offs need to be made, I would ask that the following be considered:

1. The economy is a sub-set of human, social relations. Without people, there can be no economy.
   Ultimately, the way an economy is structured is by agreement between the people. If we wanted to, we could agree to run our economy differently. What we now consider “normal” has not always been part of the way societies have structured their trade and financial relations. For example, there were times when the charging of interest was not part of trade and financial relations.

1. Societies, groups of people living in the same area, are a sub-set of the environment. Without habitable environment, there can be no society.
   Volcanic eruptions, radioactive accidents, floods or natural disasters can make an area uninhabitable for a short time or for generations.

1. To decide which to prioritise (economy, society, or environment), I hope that timescales of impacts, risks, and maximising opportunities are factors in the decision-making process.
   

3.1.  Timescales of impacts

If significant action to mitigate impacts of climate change was taken and a “high” post-2020 emissions reduction target was set:

-  Negative economic impacts would occur in the short-term. An emissions target of a 40 to 60 percent cut by 2030, in the words of the CEO of the Minerals Council, would "slash economic growth, real wages and household living standards.”[i]
If not action was taken, there would likely be no impact on the economy in the short-term.

-  Social impacts would flow from the changes in the economy.

-  Positive environmental impacts would occur in the long-term in that the worst effects (i.e. a greater than 2 degrees increase in average global temperature) would be averted.
If no action was taken, there would likely be negative environmental impacts in the long-term. Considering an increase in over 4 degrees by the end of the century[ii] is similar to the temperature difference to the last ice age (which was 5 degrees), this potentially has devastating effects on society and economy.

3.2.  Risk-assessment

Greg Craven[iii] has developed a risk-assessment matrix to consider the impacts of climate change and whether to take significant action to mitigate.
Whilst a lot of energy is spent discussing whether climate change is happening and caused by humans, the question is not whether it is or not. Rather, he suggests the question is whether to take action or not.
His model does not include the “social” sphere, which I will deal with afterwards.

I agree with his conclusion that significant action should be taken.
The trade-off of short-term economic gain over long-term environmental, social and economic loss is – in my view – too short-sighted. Not only is there a significant risk of large impacts on the economy in future, these will likely pale in comparison to impacts on society and the foundations for human life.

3.3.  Maximising opportunities

Decisions we now make have potentially far-reaching consequences.
Whilst some can be reversed, others severely restrict the opportunities for future governments, businesses and people. For example, not reigning in global warming will put our future at risk as even if future governments and people may want to severely restrict emissions, what we have set in train may not be stoppable. They may find themselves in a similar situation to the passengers of the ill-fated Germanwings plane.

1. It is my submission that an ambitious emissions reduction target should be set, such as the one recommended by the Climate Change Authority.
   Whilst in the short-term there may be impacts on the economy, it will enable our society to have a conversation about the role of the economy and other factors in decision-making. It will also enable us to discuss what sort of society we want to create, including the level of income inequality we consider appropriate.
   In my submission, the Australian target should not be predicated on “what others are doing”, but should truly lead the global response. As one of the largest per capita emitters globally, our way of life is more dependent on fossil fuels than that in other countries. If we are unable to have a significant impact on our fossil fuel use, our economy will crash more severely when fossil fuels (especially petrol) run out. The concerns raised by the CEO of the Minerals Council will then become reality. Better to consider and deal with the risks earlier.
   In terms of additional policy responses, proven policies such as an emissions trading scheme and direct action (if emissions reductions can be shown after two years) should be used. Further, businesses that profit through mining and exporting fossil fuels should be accountable for the emissions those fuels will generate.

Thank you for considering the points raised in this submission.

Kind regards,

Gregor Ptok

[i] http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/climate-change-authority-targets-too-big-a-burden-says-government-20150422-1mqxme.html

[ii] Climate Change 2014 – Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, p.11

[iii] https://youtu.be/AE6Kdo1AQmY