“In Australia, we see it working perfectly. There is a strong interest in reducing domestic emissions, and policies avoid addressing the export side of things entirely,” says Jotzo. The Australian government, elected in 2022, has set a goal of net zero emissions by 2050 but has refused to ban new coal and gas projects. Despite pledging hundreds of millions of dollars for public batteries, solar banks and EV charging, the country is the world’s second largest coal exporter and boasts the third largest coal reserves.
Given recent record droughts, temperatures, wildfires and floods, the Australian government may expect to reconsider continued extraction of coal, oil and gas. But Polly Hemming, director of the climate and energy program at the Australian Institute, an independent think tank in Canberra, says the government is too indebted to industry to do that. increase. “Climate policy has been completely overturned. Industry is setting the climate standards they want from governments,” she says. Her influence is exercised through political donations, industry lobbyists (often former politicians and political staffers), and intimidation campaigns against government actions on climate change. “Fear is a far more powerful motivator than hope or optimism, so governments quickly back down,” she says.
There is no economic logic to this. The Australian government subsidizes fossil fuels by about AU$11 billion (US$7.36 billion) each year, yet the fossil fuel industry employs fewer workers than McDonald’s. Most of the companies that extract and sell Australia’s fossil fuel reserves are foreign-owned, pay little tax on Australian coffers, and most of what is extracted is exported, he says. . Yet this “incredibly small handful of truly powerful corporate interests” still holds power.
This is ironic, given that IPCC authors say the economic and social benefits of climate change mitigation far outweigh the costs. Air pollution alone was estimated at about $2.9 trillion worldwide in 2018, and he claimed 4.5 million lives that year alone. far surpasses Mitigation options such as wind and solar energy, green infrastructure, energy efficiency, electrification of urban systems, and reduction of food waste are becoming increasingly cost-effective compared to business as usual.
Samantha Gross, director of energy security and climate initiatives at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., believes that despite the pressing need to decarbonise, the multitrillion-dollar energy sector is just a dime. says it can’t be done. “While we transform the system, we need to feed the system,” she says Gross. “The energy systems that use these fossil fuels aren’t changing so quickly that we don’t need them,” Gross said, adding that the recent gas crisis caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has led to this. It is said that it shows Some European countries are re-opening old coal-fired power plants to fill the energy gap that still exists despite the increasing adoption of renewable energy.
Gross argues that industry will provide supply as long as there is demand for fossil fuels. “Fossil fuels are so abundant that it is very difficult to fight climate change from the supply side,” she says. She advocates focusing on the demand side of the equation. More policies and regulations to drive the shift away from fossil fuels, including more investment in renewable energy, larger and faster moves to electrify the transport sector, and the use of carbon pricing mechanisms. Encourage and support the adoption of low-emission technologies.
