Australians encouraged to contribute to setting, tracking and achieving Australia’s climate change targets
Climate Change Authority Media Release
The Climate Change Authority has released a consultation paper inviting Australians to contribute their input to the Authority’s advice on the response to climate change.
The Issues paper, entitled Setting, tracking and achieving Australia’s emissions reductions targets, asks 31 questions including “what do you think Australia’s 2035 target should be?” and “what more could the Government do to help you reduce your carbon footprint?”
“Climate change affects every one of us, and the Authority’s recommendations to Government will be improved by listening to voices across the Australian economy and community. There are significant opportunities and challenges in accelerating decarbonisation, yet the pace of change must increase. Hearing people’s ideas and concerns is vital for ensuring we can present advice to the Government that is based on robust research, the most up-to-date science and the views of Australians”, Mr Brad Archer, CEO of the Climate Change Authority said.
The Authority is keen to hear from the broadest range of perspectives, especially from groups who will be particularly affected by the transition and whose voices can be lost – such as those belonging to First Nations, regional, remote and very remote communities.
The Authority is starting work on four major projects:
- Advice on emissions reduction targets for Australia’s next Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) under the Paris Agreement
- Advice for the Minister for Climate Change and Energy’s Annual Climate Change Statement (2023 Annual Progress Report)
- Review of the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011 (CFI Review)
- Review of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 (NGER Review).
“The purpose of this paper is to initiate an efficient, inclusive, and effective consultation process across these four projects. We are seeking general feedback on the Authority’s frameworks for developing advice and more detailed input on a range of issues.”
“We recognise individuals and organisations have different areas of interest. We invite people to answer as many or as few questions as they wish and to share their personal perspectives and experiences with climate change. All feedback is welcome,” Mr Archer said.
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
6 comments
Login here Register here-
Douglas Pritchard -
Stephen S -
Canguro -
Clakka -
Douglas Pritchard -
wam
Return to home pageBeing a bit clueless on the subject should not prevent me from commenting.
But we are tied into a culture which encourages air travel, and its a country with big distances.
China is faced with the same problem, and is solving it (not entirely) with fast rail, and from all accounts its impressive.
USA is same old, same old, and has opted for air which is damned expensive in terms of carbon. I believe trains are there for people of colour according to my sister.
East west travel in this country, by train, is there for the well heeled with time to spare, and some freight, but air wins, and there is no prospect of carbon friendly movement in this big brown land as long as we hang on the US culture.
I havent put my name down for electric vehicle because that is such a trifling contribution in comparison.
Pissing in the wind, Brad Archer. The government’s “climate action” and “net zero” are a big fib and a scientific joke. To outsource the problem to the community, that is gaslighting of the first degree. They’re having a lend of you, Douglas.
When you consider our third-world immigration deluge, plus rocketing population growth, laissez faire land-clearing, chronic habitat loss and species crashes, profound water insecurity, then heavy Budget reliance on extractive revenues. Like, fossil fuels forever.
The American environmentalist and campaigner against global warming, Bill McKibben, wrote an article which was published in the Rolling Stone magazine in July 2012, titled Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math, in which he laid out the scenario as it was then understood.
A decade later, things have only gone from bad to worse. The UN Secretary-General António Guterres’s pronouncements on the impacts of global warming have become increasingly despairing. Governments, collectively, have done little to nothing to rein in the emissions of heat-trapping gases, and temperatures continue to rise, oceans continue to absorb enormous amounts of energy leading to increased precipitation, hurricane events, along with acidification with disastrous results on marine ecosystems at all levels of strata, ice melts of polar icecaps, sea-bed fracturing in regions such as the East Siberian Arctic Shelf with the consequence of massive methane discharges as the clathrates thaw, and that’s just for starters.
Across the global landscapes we also see massive loss of glacial mass, a phenomenon that will have major implications for potable water supply for millions of people not to mention the other inhabitants of the various animal kingdoms, accelerating species decline … thus the term Anthropocene, the sixth extinction event, insect populations reduced by up to 80-90% in many regions, once in a hundred years disasters now occurring on an unprecedented rate… you could say, putting it crudely, that the ship is going down.
Let there be no ambiguity around this topic. It dwarfs every other existential challenge to humanity by a scale of 10 to whatever factor, 2…3… who knows, but it’s the real deal and humanity, by and large, is in denial and is just fiddling at the margins, or pissing in the wind as Stephen S wrote.
America v. China is a sideshow by comparison. As is Albanese’s commitment to AUKUS. We’d be better off building arks by the millions, not that they’ll save any of us in the long run. As Roy Scranton wrote in Learning to Die in the Anthropocene, [2015], “We’re fucked. The only questions are how soon and how badly.”
The Climate Change Authority is a comforting sounding name… suggestive of competence and capability, but really? I’d suggest they’re as clueless as the rest of us, faced with the snowball rolling downhill towards humanity, collectively, gathering size and momentum along the way. Whadda ya gunna do? Run? Where? There’s literally no place to hide.
If ever there was a case for quantitative easing, it would be solely directed toward the speedy abatement of climate change.
And you never know, the antediluvian drongos may be surprised by the huge economic benefits of the spin of new and advanced technologies and a revitalised environment, and maybe wake up to the reality that their precious script in olde worlde industry will be of little use to their otherwise asphyxiated heirs.
Living in Manly, NSW in 1965 I attended a public meeting organised by some climate knowledgable folk.
Next morning I thought now that we know what the problem is, and its urgency, then things will change.
I mean, we all want to save the planet, dont we?
Well that was a long time ago, and now a fraction wiser.
Canguro…what to do….no option but to follow the lemmings.I can no longer see any bolt holes.
well done. canga, greenhouse gases cause a greenhouse effect. The extensive current effects are easily shared and should frighten everybody. Sadly, the visual scary effects are masked by the non-scary ‘climate change’.
ps
Douglas,
the planet is destined to die in 7.5 billion years climate change is irrelevant.