No point in costly abatement ahead of the biggest polluters
If serial scaremonger Tim Flannery reckons a climate abatement target is "vastly inadequate", it's likely to be just about right. Flannery was pre-emptively disappointed by Tony Abbott's announcement yesterday that Australia would cut carbon emissions by 26-28 per cent, below 2005 levels, by 2030. The Prime Minister pitched this target as "economically responsible" at an estimated cost between 0.2 and 0.3 per cent of gross domestic product by 2030. And he said it would put Australia "fairly and squarely in the middle of comparable economies" such as Japan, New Zealand, Canada and the US. Such trade-offs and comparisons infuriate climate absolutists. 
Australia must tailor climate change policy to its circumstances as a trade-exposed exporter of fossil fuels with a recent history of economic growth and population increase well above the levels seen in other advanced economies. We account for just 1.3 per cent of global emissions and we are right to weigh carefully the economic cost of climate abatement. The independent Climate Change Authority, for example, had urged emission reductions of 40-60 per cent, below 2000 levels, by 2030; government estimates suggest this would reduce economic growth by 2 per cent. It would be foolhardy to commit Australia to such a course in the absence of a credible international agreement binding the biggest polluters on the planet.
Credibility is a key factor in the Abbott government's announcement. Unlike other nations, Australia met its 2012 target under the Kyoto agreement and is on track to meet its 2020 target for cuts in emissions. Better a modest target that is met than the hypocrisy of a headline figure that will never be translated into reality. Last year there was a lot of hype about a climate change agreement between the US and China. This overlooked the fact coal-seam gas had unexpectedly transformed the energy mix of the US; the prospect of easier than expected emission cuts also owed much to sluggish economic growth. As for China, it is expected to increase its emissions by 150 per cent; emissions that only reach their peak in 2030. And Europe was fortunate in having 1990 as its reference year for cuts; Germany recorded lower emissions thanks to the closure of many industrial sites in what was East Germany. Lately, Britain and Germany have been winding back costly subsidies for renewable energy.
The ambition of   December's climate summit in Paris is to agree on measures that will limit global warming to a 2 per cent increase. It's tempting to say this shouldn't be hard, given the recent hiatus in warming. But, seriously, it is difficult to envisage the big emitters - China, the US, Europe and India - signing up to an agreement that requires serious action. The same pragmatic thinking lay behind the 2007 Shergold report, which warned Australia not to pursue costly abatement measures in the absence of a workable international regime.
Of course, domestic politics are also a factor in yesterday's announcement by Mr Abbott. He and Environment Minister Greg Hunt pitched the target as achievable on existing policies - without a carbon tax or upward pressure on electricity prices. They hope to make mischief for Bill Shorten, who is caught between a modest, bipartisan renewable energy target and Labor's uncosted "aspirational" promise of 50 per cent renewable energy by 2030.What will the Opposition Leader do? In question time yesterday, Labor tried to hold the government accountable for rising unemployment. But job losses in fossil fuel industries will not bother the inner-city, greenish voters who are the audience for Labor's aspirational energy target. Climate-driven unemployment certainly will bother blue-collar unions influential within Labor's party structure; they are unlikely to be reassured by the idea, floated at last month's national party conference, of a bureaucracy to conjure up new jobs for livelihoods lost in the coal-fired power industry. Yet if Shorten accepts the government's modest emissions target for 2030, he will enrage white-collar unions and alienate big-city voters already inclined to embrace the Greens. By now Bill must feel rather hot under the collar.