[Theme music starts]

RUBY:

From Schwartz Media, I’m Ruby Jones this is 7am.

The world has come to new agreements on climate action.

At COP27 in Egypt, measures to tackle damage and loss in countries affected by climate change have been decided upon.

But there was also disappointment, largely around the failure to make more ambitious commitments to reduce emissions.

The Summit also marked a turning point for Australia - a chance for a new Government to bring its new targets to the international stage.

Today - fellow of the Asia Society Policy Institute and former diplomatic adviser during the Paris Agreement negotiations, Thom Woodroofe, on Australia’s role at COP27, and the next challenge: meeting our commitments.

It’s Wednesday November 23.

[Theme music ends]

RUBY:

Thom, after two weeks of negotiations between delegates from close to 200 countries the UN's Climate Summit COP 27 has wrapped up in Egypt. So can we begin by talking about what was achieved, what was actually agreed on, at the end of all of that?

THOM:

Sure. Well, like most COP’s, it was a mixed bag. On the plus side, the COP agreed to establish a new financial mechanism for what's called loss and damage, and that's to address the irreparable losses and damages that are caused by climate impacts, such as from floods, storms, droughts.

Archival tape -- COP speeches:

“I now invite the COP to adopt the decision entitled Funding Arrangements for Responding to loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change including a focus on addressing loss and damage.”

THOM:

And that's really a historic outcome. It's something the vulnerable countries have been calling for for 30 years since the COPs themselves began. And to me, it also marked a shift in the international process itself, seeking to not only address the mitigation needed to avoid the worst impacts of climate change and the adaptation needed to help prepare for those impacts. To actually now recognising that these impacts have arrived.

Archival tape -- COP speeches:

“If there are no objections, it is so decided.”

THOM:

On the negative side, it was a hard fought battle against a number of petro states in the company of a weak host country in Egypt to hold the line on agreed language to do with ambition of cutting emissions from what was agreed last year in Glasgow and even what was in the Paris Agreement in 2015. For example, last year in Glasgow, you may remember the final outcome was held up over some language with the need to phase out fossil fuels. Language, I might add, that Australia even supported under the Morrison Government and which had never ironically been included in a COP decision text. Now the compromise then was that that text became phased down rather than phased out. But in Egypt, that has not been improved upon.

And the last thing I'd say is this year's COP also failed to deliver as many headline new targets as many wished for, especially after the lacklustre goals that many countries put on the table last year. While a few countries did deliver Indonesia, Vietnam and of course the new Government in Australia, it was a long way short of what many ultimately hoped for.

RUBY:

Mm hmm. And so could you tell me a bit about how Australia entered this year's negotiations? Because we've got a new Government and we're bringing different climate commitments to the table this year compared to what happened at Glasgow last year. So how has that changed the way that Australia is perceived by the international community?

THOM:

Australia went back into these negotiations shouting from the rooftops that they were back in the fold of international climate leadership. And it's true. For the last four years, Australia had effectively become a villain in this international process.

Archival tape -- 10 News:

“Australia has copped the unwanted tag of the least helpful country at the Glasgow climate talks, which have been pushed into overtime. Another final draft of the COP 26 decision was released and instantly attacked for going soft on coal.”

THOM:

And Australians were used to the annual story at the end of each year of Australia, siding with the likes of Saudi Arabia and Russia to hold up progress on these climate talks.

Archival tape -- Reporter:

“Australia refused to sign a widely accepted pledge to phase out coal and came to the summit with weak short term emission targets. For that, it's been named the colossal fossil of the summit, a title awarded by activists to the least helpful nation at each climate conference.”

THOM:

As John Kerry, the US Special Envoy on Climate, said last week. In fact, at the conference in reference to Australia, it was a reminder that elections matter. In Egypt we saw Australia bring newfound energy and therefore influence to bear on the process that helps bring other countries with us.

Archival tape -- Chris Bowen:

“Australia has been working hard with like minded countries to affirm very, very strongly and clearly that the commitments that were made in Glasgow must be adhered to here in Egypt.”

THOM:

You saw Chris Bowen, the Minister of Climate Change, asked by the Egyptians to co-chair one of the negotiating streams, which is a recognition of the constructive role that he had to play.

Archival tape -- Chris Bowen:

“The big difference people tell me between this COP and the last and the previous COPs is that Australia and Brazil, the two big countries under new management, are making a much more constructive, positive approach, and that's making a difference in the negotiations...”

THOM:

And most importantly, within one month of taking office, the Government had updated the existing target, which was set up by no less than Tony Abbott in 2015, which meant that they were one of the countries that was bringing the most new ambition to the table in Egypt, and that that is the reason why they were able to bring so much energy and enthusiasm to the process.

RUBY:

Right and that new target is a 43 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030, and that’s a lower target than countries like the United States. But are we on track to fulfil that commitment? Because making it is one thing, but the real challenge is actually meeting it, isn't it?

THOM:

So it's really hard to tell if we are on track for the target because the Government only said that target, as I said, in June, and we actually don't yet have the annual figures for our actual emissions.

Based on last year's figures, though, yes, we are not on track. To reach our new targets we would, in fact, fall an entire year short. In other words, we would have to stop emitting anything for an entire year to get to our target by 2030.
Now, clearly that is impossible.

RUBY:

We'll be back after this.

[ADVERTISEMENT]

RUBY:

Thom, it's clear that big changes are going to have to be made in Australia for us to be able to meet our emissions reductions targets. So can we dig down into that a little bit more? What does Australia need to be doing and on what timeline?

THOM:

Sure. I mean, the answer is we need to do a lot more and we need to do it quickly. Targets, by their very nature, should, as the Paris Agreement says, reflect what's called the upper limits of national ambition. In other words, we shouldn't necessarily have all the answers for how we're going to get there, but we should strive to get there. The biggest chunk of our emissions, around a third of our emissions comes from our production of energy. And overwhelmingly that means from coal and also now increasingly from natural gas.

RUBY:

Hmm. Let's talk a bit about that. Yeah. Because the Australian Government, it still supports the fossil fuel industry. So with that in mind, how can we possibly meet our commitments? Is that even something that we can think about doing while we continue to allow new fossil fuel projects to go ahead?

THOM:

Well, it's a good question because, you know, our support for the fossil fuel industry is absolutely at odds with the climate leadership that we're hoping to espouse internationally. And it's and it's one, by the way, it's a juxtaposition which will increasingly come into focus.

You know, Australia at this conference of parties has been able to proclaim from the rooftops proudly that it is back. Its ability to increasingly do that in the next few years, absent a change in terms of its support for the fossil fuel industry, will dwindle. So, you know, Australia might be seeking to do more, but the fact is we are still the world's largest exporter of coal, we are one of the largest exporters of gas. We have around 100 fossil fuel projects right now proposed for development in Australia. Now most of them won't be ultimately approved, but the fact is that's a hell of a lot. And we of course still provide subsidies for many of these projects despite undertaking, along with the rest of the G20 several years ago, to bring those subsidies to an end. So it's something the Government absolutely needs to address.

Now, the best way to address that is to find ways to massively ramp up the renewables and storage in our electricity grid, because that brings coal fired electricity, which is about two thirds of all of our electricity. It brings that share down.

RUBY:

Okay. And so what is your opinion on why politically, it does seem to be so difficult to make a change here? For the Australian Government to end its support for the fossil fuel industry and to stop relying on exporting coal and gas.

THOM:

Well, I mean, the reality is we can't just turn off emissions overnight like a light switch, unfortunately. You know, too much of our economy depends on the industries that are creating those emissions. I do think, though, there's something deeper than that. I think that, you know, to some extent, there is a national psyche which is wedded to the fact that coal is essential to our future economic prosperity, as it has been in many ways in recent decades, and also that renewables are not a cheaper and more reliable form of energy.

Now, both of those propositions are utter nonsense, and if you start to peel it back, you realise that, you know, the coal industry in Australia actually only employs, depending on how you measure it, between about ten and 40,000 people. More people, exponentially more people work at McDonald's in Australia, about 80,000 people work at McDonald's in Australia. Now yes, that workforce in the coal sector is heavily concentrated in particular communities and that matters because it means that if we are going to transition that workforce, we need to do it in a way that is just that makes sense for the workers, that makes sense for the industry, and makes sense for the communities that they live within.

But, you know, we also have an absolutely perfect storm in terms of transitioning that workforce. We've got the best climate in the world for renewable energies like wind and solar. We've got an absolutely thirsty Asian market on our doorstep that is crying out for more energy, including in the form of things like green hydrogen. And we've got a workforce which is standing ready to transition in many of the geographic locations in our country where these large scale renewable energy projects, including renewable energy projects for export, would be best located. And that is where a lot of our coal industry is currently located. The reason why we can't make that transition, it's a big transition, but we've got to start is we've got to start to have a conversation that's mature about this that allows us to get past their deeply ingrained psyches and actually start to move this move this forward.

RUBY:

And in terms of moving forward Tom, Australia has indicated that it would like to co-host COP 31 in 2026 with Pacific Nations. So, if that does eventuate - if we do host COP 31, where should we be at by then, in terms of our targets and our reductions?

THOM:

I mean the two big challenges for Australia between now and then in terms of the eyes of the international community with respect to hosting the COP will be as follows.

First in ensuring we actually meet our target and start to make some of those difficult decisions in terms of our support for the fossil fuel industry that I mentioned. The second is what we do in that all important year of 2025. What do we do in terms of the target that we will have to set as every other country in the world will do at that time for 2035, on the basis of the five year ratchet mechanism which was agreed in Paris. Now here's where the rubber’s really going to hit the road, because the expectation will be that we're able to match countries like the Americans in terms of the ambition that they're able to bring to the table. But the expectation is, in large part, that Australia probably is going to have to table a target in the order of around 75 per cent reduction on 2005 levels in order to be seen to pass the pub test. And that is a huge step up from the 43 per cent target that I mentioned that the current Government has just set.

So we've got a lot of work to do to start to find ways to bend the emissions curve in Australia, and as I say in 2025 that will be very much in the spotlight.

RUBY:

Thom, thank you so much for your time.

THOM:

No worries. Thank you.

[ADVERTISEMENT]

[Theme music starts]

RUBY:

Also in the news today…

A poll published in The Age newspaper shows that the Victorian state election has tightened significantly as it enters its final stages.

The poll shows that the primary vote of the Labor and Liberal parties are neck-and-neck, but Dan Andrews’ Labor party is still safely ahead on a two-party preferred basis, with a margin of 53 to 47.

The election is this Saturday, November 26.

And

The latest report by the group Media Diversity Australia has again demonstrated that the faces appearing on Australian TV screens are disproportionately white.

Presenters with an Anglo-Celtic background were, quote, “vastly over-represented.”

The report found that while Australia’s non-European population was almost 25 per cent, they made up just over 6 per cent of people's appearances on televised news and current affairs programs.

I’m Ruby Jones, this is 7am. See you tomorrow.

[Theme music ends]