So, I did a bit of a dig through the quarterly emissions update and the projections, and pulled out a few things. Much of this won't surprise those who follow this closely. But all this stuff deserves continued attention. 🧵 1. Our emissions reductions have basically flatlined since 2020. - ThreadSky

mikeyslezak.bsky.social • 86 days ago

So, I did a bit of a dig through the quarterly emissions update and the projections, and pulled out a few things. Much of this won't surprise those who follow this closely. But all this stuff deserves continued attention. 🧵

1. Our emissions reductions have basically flatlined since 2020.

Comments

d-le-nen.bsky.social•86 days ago

... if you have no cap & trade or other emission pricing in place...

mikeyslezak.bsky.social•86 days ago

2. The majority of the cuts since 2005 have been in the land sector - not doing things like, erm, stopping burning fossil fuels...

mikeyslezak.bsky.social•86 days ago

3. Another problem with that (aside from not representing a shift in how our economy is functioning) is that the measure of land use emissions is very unreliable. The government changes its mind every year about it. And each time, it seems to be revised to make things look better.

mikeyslezak.bsky.social•86 days ago

4. Without those specific cuts, this is what our emissions history looks like. Emissions in 2023 were almost identical to 2005.

mikeyslezak.bsky.social•86 days ago

5. Now for the projections... Labor's 2030 target will me met mostly by cuts in the electricity sector. But you need to read the projections with caution. They actually simply *assume* that the cuts are made, and pop them on the chart. (Also, those cuts peter out after 2030.)

mikeyslezak.bsky.social•86 days ago

6. Finally, a note on the targets. The 2030 targets will require lots to be done (like building transmission and a workforce) to ensure the renewables can be ramped up sufficiently, in line with the projections. And then for 2050... well... something will need to happen in the rest of the economy.

mikeyslezak.bsky.social•86 days ago

You can read the whole story here:

andrewstyan.bsky.social•86 days ago

should redraw this with energy at the top to make it obvious how little (ie nothing) has been done elsewhere.

andrewstyan.bsky.social•86 days ago

electricity not energy

noticingclimate.bsky.social•86 days ago

Government changes its mind every year. And each time, it seems to be revised to make things look better."
- Michael Slezak

Because that's what junkies do.

#AusPol #AusClimate #RioTinto #Chevron #AndrewForrest #forresttheory #tonyabbott #climatedenial #climatesky #disinformation #energysky

climatecology.bsky.social•85 days ago

Bit harsh to say ‘changes it mind’. Australia’s National Carbon Accounting System is considered among world’s best. Estimates are updated in line with with improved data.
But broader point about FF emissions being problematic remains true of course.

sunnydarkgreen.bsky.social•85 days ago

My kids often claim to have done more jobs last week than they have in this one.

The joke is that Australian bureaucrats & offset fraudsters get away with it.

deanrizzetti.bsky.social•85 days ago

I think the slight conspiracy chat on moving LULUCF is a bit misplaced. You get new models, you calibrate them, you integrate them. These do lead to revisions both up and down, but you'd expect that in general modellers have been conservative and more accurate models allow for less conservativism.

lindainlight.bsky.social•85 days ago

I wonder if an incentive to buy EVs would make a difference. Cancel incentives for hybrids.

hirokiboy.bsky.social•85 days ago

Plug in Hybrids are still better than normal ice cars, especially for long distance &for people with range anxiety. We need Regulations requiring new properties to have solar panels(if possible) & for landlords to retrofit panels on existing properties. Being a landlord is a privilege not a right

dom-ma.bsky.social•85 days ago

Sorry, but there’s no point talking about time series beginning in 2020 if you don’t talk mainly about covid.

dom-ma.bsky.social•85 days ago

If you wanted to do this properly, you’d need to begin by examining emissions per GDP & separately, emissions per capita.

Both those factors that are by far the main drivers of emissions were totally up-ended by the pandemic.
Sorry to say that the analysis as presented is effectively meaningless

dom-ma.bsky.social•85 days ago

Im sure you put a lot of work into this, but you should really retract it & republish once it accounts for the overwhelming denominator effects

grogsgamut.bsky.social•85 days ago

It truly is not. Emissions per capita is the type of metric climate change deniers and Scott Morrison thought mattered and used to make it look like they’d done things.

All that matters is the totals.

dom-ma.bsky.social•85 days ago

Not true at all. It depends entirely on what question you’re trying to answer.
In this case, the question is: what has the government done?
Given that the economy staled in 2020 & immigration exploded in 2022, you just can’t address that question without accounting for these denominator effects.

grogsgamut.bsky.social•85 days ago

Suggesting it should be retracted is bizarre. Fact is we need to reduce emissions as quickly as we did *during* the pandemic.

dom-ma.bsky.social•85 days ago

a) the pandemic is ongoing. This *is* during the pandemic.
b) emissions fell sharply in 2020 because we shut down the economy. That’s not a remotely sustainable way to deal with the problem.

dom-ma.bsky.social•85 days ago

Maybe having done a phd in interpreting one of histories most rapid energy transitions means I have unfairly high standards for these things, but I'd hope that a fundamentally misinforming article would give even the ABC pause.

ketanjoshi.co•85 days ago

The climate system responds to absolute, accumulated greenhouse gas emissions, not GHG per capita or GDP - so it's a fair metric to analyse.

That aside....neither are dramatically different to overall emissions, besides somewhat masking the absolute stagnation?

https://www.dcceew.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/nggi-quarterly-update-june-2024.pdf

timinclimate.bsky.social•85 days ago

This isn't really true I'm afraid, and the forces at play in Australia's emissions are largely COVID agnostic now.

Even domestic aviation - which was the most affected sub-sector of the Australian economy - returned to BAU in 2023-24.

In a week or so I plan to do an explainer on all of this.

dom-ma.bsky.social•85 days ago

This would be true unless your baseline is 2020, which in the case of this article, it is.

timinclimate.bsky.social•85 days ago

Again, I don't really agree. Insofar as that's true, it's not really meaningful when you get into the trends that are occurring at the sectoral and sub-sector level.

(Definitely not suggesting that you can't have that opinion. I just disagree. It's ok for us to differ.)

dom-ma.bsky.social•85 days ago

If you'll indulge me, I'm not ready to agree to disagree.
This article claims emissions reductions have flatlined and forecast reductions are "simply assumed". It's fundamentally a claim about government failure, not about the prospect of stabilising the climate....

dom-ma.bsky.social•85 days ago

But Aus emissions have flatlined only in comparison to 2020 when the economy was shut down, and in significant part due to a massive increase in immigration.
Why do sectoral trends overturn that basic reality?

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply