Climate Change: A Burning Issue for

Climate Change

A Burning Issue for Australia?

Shrishti Shah

As fires devastate Australia, we are seeing an increase in climate change risk to people, animals and the economy. It reinforces the need for Australia to take a stand and substantially increase its efforts to reduce climate change risks. In the recent 25 th United Nations Climate Change Conference (‘COP 25’) and the 2 nd meeting of the Paris Agreement, Australia promised to reduce emissions by 25% of 2005 levels by 2030. This article will examine Australia’s current efforts to deal with climate change risks and engage with recommendations to prevent the rising of global temperatures.

Nationally determined contributions (‘NDCs’) under the Paris Agreement embody the nationally led eforts taken up by all parties to the agreement to deal with climate change efects. Under the agreement, NDCs do not require states to meet specifc greenhouse gas emission targets. Furthermore, the agreement encourages developed countries that have the resources at hand to take the lead in reducing national emissions and adapting to the impacts of climate change.

As NDCs are not legally binding, three diferent review processes are required to enforce the compliance of state parties. The frst review is the ‘enhanced transparency framework’ where a review by a technical expert is conducted followed by a multilateral consideration review. The second review takes the form of a global stocktake process every 5 years to assess the parties’ progress in achieving the long-term goals of the Paris Agreement. State parties are then lastly reviewed by an expert committee that can neither be adversarial nor punitive to facilitate implementation and promote compliance. However, ‘Urgenda Foundation v State of the Netherlands’- a landmark litigation, is giving emergence to the recognition of climate change risks in state obligations through international environmental law. The Urgenda Foundation and

“How far can litigation, as a solution to the NDCs, go in confronting the modern challenge of climate change?

the 886 co-litigants brought a case to the Hague District Court against the Dutch government to take a stronger stance in decreasing the State’s greenhouse emissions. This raises the question of, how far can litigation, as a solution to the NDCs, go in confronting the modern challenge of climate change? The end goal for the Netherlands is to cease emission entirely by 2100. Therefore, the main issue was whether the State was acting unlawfully by not reducing emissions by 25% to 40% annually. Although the total annual emissions for the Netherlands had reduced by 13%, the Netherlands would not be able to prevent further climate change risks without the further 25% reduction. It recognised that there would be enormous pressure on the State to reduce emissions by 49% annually in the future if this change is not implemented. The Dutch government originally wanted to settle with a 14% reduction – though, it would not be enough to meet the emission targets.

The current judgment was a success at the Hague Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of the Netherlands. The Supreme Court of the Netherlands upheld that the Netherlands must cut 25% of its emissions by next year ‘to protect the residents of the Netherlands from the serious risk of climate change’. The case sets a precedent for future litigation that Australia may face in the near future. However, it is difcult to use the judgement as precedent as the ‘duty to protect’ doctrine that is referenced in the Dutch Constitution under Article 21 does not carry any weight in Australia. Therefore, reliance on litigation as an option is limited as there needs to be continuous action being taken to meet emission targets.

Under Australia’s NDCs, one of the main goals to reduce carbon emission is to create 23% of electricity

in Australia from renewable sources by 2020, in addition to the goal of improving the national energy productivity target by 40% in the 15 years between 2015 to 2030 and improving efciency in vehicles. Another goal is to reduce greenhouse emissions to around 402-3 million tonnes annually by 2030, which is equivalent to 26-8% below 2005 levels.

Since, there have been some improvements. Firstly, many companies are going carbon neutral. The national ofset standard allows carbon neutral companies to build a network. Having a network of companies that have become carbon neutral means creating norms and an environment where companies encourage each other to be consistently carbon neutral.

Furthermore, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation’s (‘CEFC’) was introduced to facilitate increased fows of fnance into clean, renewable and low emission technologies. The CEFC supports the development of a resilient, balanced and secure electricity system through its investment activities. Australia also introduced a solar energy program between 2017 to 2018 – an initiative by the government that provided over $5 million worth of funding to community groups in selected regions across Australia to install rooftop solar photovoltaic, solar hot water and solar-connected battery systems to reduce emissions. However, the introduction of a new coal mine and fossil fuel subsidies are creating barriers to Australia’s ability to meet its climate change goals under the NDC.

The United Kingdom (‘UK’) and New Zealand, on the other hand, have already passed national legislations with the Climate Change Act 2008 in the UK and Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act 2019 in New Zealand to introduce climate action. The ‘Zero Carbon’ legislation

makes substantial impacts that aim to make the country carbon neutral by 2050. The UK’s target is to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050. Critically, the UK Government Advisory Committee on Climate Change concluded that if all countries were to follow the UK’s lead, it would lead to a predicted increase of a 50% chance of staying below the 1.5 degrees increase in global temperatures by 2100. Within the 10 years since the Climate Change Act 2008 was passed, the UK successfully implemented a statutory fveyear carbon budget. This budget provides a cap for emissions within a fve-year period. The legislation has also made monitoring and reporting mandatory, and in combination with introduced climate change risk assessments, it has allowed for a healthy reform. In Australia, the State of Victoria is taking the lead as it enforced the Climate Change Act 2017 (Vic) – although, more needs to be done. The need for more efective action could be addressed properly with a secured federal legislation in place. Thus, Australia should be following the footsteps of the UK and

New Zealand as there is currently no specifc legislation that enforces its NDCs from the Paris Agreement. The ‘safeguard mechanism’ under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 does provide a framework for Australia’s largest emitters to measure, report and manage their emissions. Although, the lack of enforcement through the absence of legislation brings about inefciency in meeting the goal of reducing emissions by around 402-3 million tonnes annually by 2030.

In conclusion, Australia has made considerable changes and has contributed to a reduction in emissions. However, more action needs to take place, to continue to phase out greenhouse emissions all together by the end of the century. It requires a federal legislation that aims to phase out most emissions by 2050. This should be implemented together with a safeguard mechanism that monitors the eforts of the largest emitters and enforces stricter reporting standards.

“... the State of Victoria is taking the lead as it enforced the Climate Change Act 2017 (Vic) – although, more needs to be done. The need for more efective action could be addressed properly with a secured federal legislation in place.