Coalition election win endorsement of a sensible approach to climate change

Both major parties offered radically different plans aimed at tackling climate change. But it was up to Australians to assess who had the more responsible approach.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison has maintained his government's policy of reducing carbon emissions by 26-28 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030.

He intends to get there through a $3.5 billion climate solutions package, which includes a $2 billion Climate Solutions Fund, investment in energy efficiency adoption and building the Snowy 2.0 Hydro Electricity Project.

The Coalition's emissions reduction target is in line with Australia's obligation under the Paris Agreement on climate change.

Australia is responsible for 1.45pc of global emissions, and this target is comparable to the ones set by most countries with a similar polluting profile, including Japan (2.82pc), Canada (1.96pc), Indonesia (1.49pc) and Mexico (1.27pc), all of which have targets around 25pc.

Labor, in an effort to prove how seriously it views the threat of climate change, offered an ambitious plan to almost double the Coalition's target and reduce emissions to 45pc below 2005 levels by 2030 and net zero pollution by 2050.

This would have positioned Australia as having one of the highest targets in world, with a 50pc renewable energy adoption target by 2030.

But at what cost to the national economy? Consulting firm BA Economics ran the numbers, comparing the costs of both the current target and Labor's aspirational goal. The difference is stark.

BAE estimates that under the Coalition government's existing policy, electricity prices would rise by $93 per megawatt hour, real average wages would decrease by $2000 a year and there would be 78,000 job losses.

This is not ideal, but under Labor's plan the picture becomes even bleaker.

Electricity prices would soar to $128 per megawatt hour, while real average wages would plummet by $9000 per year and industry would suffer 336,000 full time job losses.

BAE estimates that Labor's climate policy would signal a cumulative $472 billion loss to Australia's gross domestic product (GDP), compared to $62 billion under the Coalition's target.

For livestock industries like dairy, BAE predicts significant indirect costs, depending on the scenario, with an expected decline of between 0.7 and 2.6 in output despite agriculture not being included as part of Labor's 45pc target.

Yes, any emissions reduction target will have a real cost attached, but Australians made a decision at the ballot box as to which plan would cause the least damage to our economy and their own bottom line.

New Labor leader Anthony Albanese is now calling for an end to the climate wars. In his first press conference as leader, Mr Albanese said he wants to work with the government on an emissions reduction plan that benefits both the environment and economy.

The real concern, from our perspective, isn't that Australia should be doing more to combat climate change. It's the commitment of other nations to achieve lower emissions.

Under the Paris Agreement, China is allowed to increase pollution to 2030, while India has an emissions intensity target significantly lower target than other G-20 countries. Added to that, many smaller countries are not signatories to the agreement and are not bound to contribute.

Assuming all countries maintain the same emissions, any increase to Australia's emissions reduction target would have a negligible impact on fighting climate change. And if other countries go so far as to increase emissions, then Australia would be in deficit both in terms of environmental and economic impact.

Climate change is a global problem requiring a global solution that is fair and equitable.

It should not be up to one country like Australia to run down its economy to achieve an aspirational target while others do nothing or worse continue to increase emissions in the pursuit of economic prosperity.

This story first appeared on Australian Dairyfarmer