What the people of California are facing is tragic. Our thoughts are with those who have lost, those who are grieving, and with the firefighters who continue to selflessly put their lives on the line to save people and property while the terrifying Santa Ana winds drive ferocious fires.

For many of us in Australia, these events are triggering. Those unfortunate enough to have suffered loss during the Black Summer bushfires of 2019/20, Victoria’s Black Saturday in 2009, or the Canberra bushfires of 2003 understand what Californians are going through right now.  

Just like California, Australia is one of the most bushfire-prone places on the planet. 

Climate change means longer, hotter and drier fire seasons

Fires like those hitting LA right now, and our own Black Summer fires, are anything but typical. They are unnatural and once would have been impossible. Climate change, caused by the burning of coal, oil and gas, has supercharged the world’s weather systems, resulting in longer, hotter, drier fire seasons, and extreme winds that drive conflagrations like those in Los Angeles. Countries that have always had fires are experiencing more fires, bigger fires, and greater property losses, and countries that have never been considered fire-prone are starting to experience fires: in 2022, 41 homes were destroyed by grass and bush fires on the outskirts of London on a 40 degree day.   

Longer, more destructive fire seasons are already affecting the sharing of firefighting resources within and outside Australia. Traditionally, fire seasons in Australia were sequential, starting in the Northern Territory  and Queensland, then later affecting New South Wales and the ACT, then Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania. This enabled the sharing of firefighters, fire trucks and aircraft, but climate change fuelled fires have changed the game. Black Summer started months earlier than normal and saw every state and territory burn at the same time, restricting capacity to send help. 

Our warming climate is changing firefighting as we know it

To help fight fires, Australia currently relies on large fixed wing air tankers and large water-dropping helicopters which, apart from a Boeing 737 owned by the NSW Government, are leased from the northern hemisphere. In 2018, when 20,000 homes were lost in California, there were no large aircraft available for use here when major fires started to impact properties in Queensland and NSW in August, two months before the official start of the NSW fire season. 

It is abundantly clear that, from a scientific perspective,  climate change is fuelling weather conditions that result in longer, more intense and devastating fires right around the world, and the reason we see events like Black Summer (our biggest, most damaging fires ever recorded), like Maui in Hawaii in 2023, like Athens in Greece in 2024, and now as LA burns in winter, at a time when fires of this type and magnitude have never been experienced before. 

We need water and hoses to fight fires – and we need facts too

Despite the irrefutable evidence that climate change is the culprit, vested interests are trying, as they did during Black Summer, to muddy the waters and continue reaping their deadly profits, aided and abetted by some political parties, social media, and sections of traditional media peddling misinformation and outright lies. This finger pointing attempts to convince us that  ‘now is not the time to talk about climate change’, but as ELCA said when we tried in vain to warn the Prime Minister of the looming fire disaster in 2019, ‘if not now, when?’. When the fires are burning, it is the most important time to inform communities about what is really happening.

When people are asking questions, they deserve to know the real answers. When lives and homes are being lost, it is more important than ever to share verified facts. The truth is: scientists have warned us for decades that climate pollution, from burning coal, oil and gas, will cause more deadly and dangerous extreme weather. Rolling disasters, with fewer reprieves in between, is our reality because the Earth’s atmosphere is warmer and far more energetic. The result is “climate whiplash”, with wild swings from dry and hot to wet and wild – as we saw when the Black Summer fires were extinguished by record-breaking flooding rains. 

So, let’s keep talking about what we need to do today and every day: cut climate pollution further and faster before our kids’ futures go up in smoke.

Frequently Asked Questions

As former senior fire and emergency service leaders, ELCA members have been asked a range of questions about the California fires and what they mean for Australian communities.

The post Wildfires in winter: What you need to know about the catastrophe unfolding in Los Angeles appeared first on Climate Council.

Australians are being kept in the dark about the true costs of the Federal Coalition’s risky and expensive nuclear scheme.

The Federal Coalition’s heavy reliance on the first of two Frontier Economics reports paints a damning picture of the methods they may use to fudge the nuclear numbers and mislead Australians. We’ve already seen them cherry-pick numbers and use them to make misleading claims in Parliament.

“The Federal Coalition’s nuclear scheme would cost Australians a bomb. It’s a risky, expensive fantasy that would see Australians paying more than $100 billion for a fraction of the electricity we need. The real danger is delaying real solutions–like building more renewables, which is the most affordable way to keep the lights on.” – Climate Councillor and economist Nicki Hutley

The Climate Council has identified seven furphies Australians are likely to see in the Federal Coalition’s nuclear costings: 

1. Comparing apples with oranges

We’ve already seen the Federal Coalition use inaccurate comparisons in the first Frontier Economics report on the cost of the shift to renewables. They inflated the cost by including ongoing fuel and maintenance expenses—which we’re already paying and which will actually drop in a renewables-led grid. On top of that, they didn’t use present value terms, a standard economic practice that accounts for the true cost over time.

Reality:

If we’re going to have a debate on the economics of building renewable power and storage, it needs to be based on best practice economics, not a false and misleading comparison.

2. Excluding the cost of attempting to keep our ageing coal stations open

AEMO expects all our outdated, unreliable and polluting coal-fired power stations to close by 2038 at the latest, with over 90% shutting down in the next 10 years. But the Federal Coalition wants to keep these creaking old coal power stations open while waiting at least 15 years or more for nuclear reactors. This would cost taxpayers a bomb in constant maintenance and fault repairs.

Reality:

Keeping just one coal power station open, Eraring in NSW, could cost taxpayers more than $225 million per year. Renewable power back by storage is the only solution ready now to fill that gap left by coal and secure reliable, affordable power for Australian homes and businesses.

3. Excluding the cost of managing highly radioactive nuclear waste

Toxic nuclear waste needs to be safely stored for 100,000 years – an enormous and costly responsibility. In Canada, storing the long-term waste from their nuclear program in an underground facility is expected to cost at least $33 billion AUD, excluding the costs already incurred to manage waste on nuclear reactor sites.

Reality:

Any plans to build nuclear reactors must include the staggering long-term costs of managing highly radioactive nuclear waste. Ignoring these costs now will unfairly burden our kids, grandkids and future generations.

4. Failing to consider the cost of climate change

The Federal Coalition’s nuclear scheme won’t cut climate pollution. In fact, building nuclear reactors would mean burning more polluting coal and gas in the meantime, which could see a further 1.5 billion tonnes more harmful climate pollution produced by 2050 – the equivalent of running the Eraring coal power station in NSW for another 126 years. Australians would pay the price in worsening unnatural disasters and skyrocketing insurance costs.

Reality:

Nuclear would cost us dearly, by delaying urgent cuts to climate pollution that would expose Australians to more unnatural disasters like bushfires, floods and heatwaves and driving up economic losses through higher insurance costs and disaster recovery bills. We should be focusing on cutting costs and climate pollution by rolling out more clean, reliable and affordable renewable power.

5. Ignoring Australia’s growing electricity needs

As Australia’s population and economy grows, keeping up with the community’s electricity needs is essential.

Reality:

The Australian Electricity Market Operator’s plan for our grid, the Integrated System Plan, expects power demand to double by 2050. We need more power to meet this need, and any assessment of cost needs to account for this. Assuming less might make costs look cheaper, but is inaccurate.

6. Ignoring the risk of cost blowouts

The Federal Coalition’s nuclear costings are likely to rely on rose-tinted assumptions, ignoring the very real possibility of massive cost overruns and delays that have plagued international nuclear projects.

For example, the UK’s Hinkley Point C energy facility is running 14 years late, at a cost three times its original estimate—now sitting at a staggering $90 billion AUD. Assuming nothing will go wrong with nuclear reactors in Australia flies in the face of international experience and puts taxpayers at enormous financial risk.

Reality:

Nuclear is simply a non-starter for Australia. The risks are immense—blowouts in cost and time, unresolved waste storage issues, and outdated technology. Projects like the UK’s Hinkley Point C show that nuclear is a financial black hole, while renewables are delivering results today.

7. Ignoring the cost of transmission upgrades

The Federal Coalition assumes nuclear reactors can avoid the costs of necessary transmission upgrades, despite these investments being approved and supported by the previous Liberal-National Government.

Reality:

Australia’s electricity grid needs substantial upgrades to meet growing energy demands and replace ageing coal-fired power stations. Building reactors near old coal stations won’t avoid the need for new transmission: the transmission previously used for coal is already being used by new batteries, wind and solar, and more investment is being planned. New transmission is needed no matter which energy source we build, and will make our grid stronger and more efficient.

“Peter Dutton could cook the books with some creative accounting to sell this fantasy. Our old coal plants are retiring in the next decade, and we need to keep investing in low cost renewables to keep the lights on, create thousands of jobs in regional Australia, and ensure we cut climate pollution further and faster. – Amanda McKenzie, CEO of the Climate Council

Let’s focus on what’s already working. Renewables are cutting pollution, creating jobs, and lowering power bills right now.

The post The seven ways the Federal Coalition could cook the books on nuclear costings appeared first on Climate Council.

Of course, the petrol-loving parts of the auto industry and their political cheerleaders want to stop this going ahead. These corporations don’t mind that we’re all paying too much for petrol-guzzling, high polluting cars because that’s how they make their profits. 

Don’t get sucked in.

Here’s a rundown of the biggest porkies about new vehicle standards, and the facts to set them straight:

“We are concerned…that this gets in front of the technology curve. And that means that vehicles would be more expensive or we won’t be able to provide some vehicles to the market in certain segments.” – Tony Weber, Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries – ABC, 4 February 2024

The claim:

A New Vehicle Efficiency Standard would “drive up the price of cars”.

The facts: 

People who live in places that already have such standards have access to more car options that are cheaper and cleaner-to-run.

Fuel efficiency standards have been in place for a long time in other countries, so there’s lots of good real world data on what happens to vehicle prices once they are introduced. Looking at this international experience, there is no evidence to suggest Australia’s proposed New Vehicle Efficiency Standard will increase vehicle prices. For example, analysis of car prices during 2003-2021 in the US, found no systemic, statistically significant increase in vehicle prices during the two decades when standards were tightened and fuel economy improved 30%”.

Manufacturers are already producing efficient low and zero emissions vehicles in their millions for other markets overseas, so sending them here as well shouldn’t mean significant change to their businesses. The Grattan Institute found that there would be minimal increase to the average cost of new cars in Australia under a NVES, at most up to $500 (or 1%). This is more than compensated for in fuel savings over the vehicle’s lifetime. 

The claim:

A New Vehicle Efficiency Standard would stop us from being able to buy 4WDs and utes.

The facts: 

Manufacturers will be able to keep selling a mix of cars, vans and utes in Australia – just like they do today. The standards incentivise them to sell their cleanest and cheapest-to-run models in Australia. 

The New Vehicle Efficiency Standard aims to limit the pollution Australia’s new cars release by setting a yearly limit on the average carbon emissions across a manufacturer’s total car sales. Over time, the maximum amount of pollution allowed is reduced, which means car makers must offer more new low and zero emissions vehicles to avoid penalties. 

This type of standard allows suppliers to choose how they meet their fleet target. In other words, it’s up to them what vehicles they sell but overall the mix must be cleaner. In other countries with similar standards, larger cars like 4WDs and utes remain widely available. They have already powered ahead with cheaper, cleaner versions of these vehicles.

In fact, the majority of Aussies’ most popular cars are already offering a cleaner, cheaper to run version or are planning to in the very near future. Of the all top ten best-selling cars sold in 2023 (over 338,000), 84% have a lower or zero emissions alternative available now or within a year.

The Ford Ranger (#1) has a PHEV planned for 2025 release; with a Toyota Hilux (#2) mild-hybrid coming mid-2024; and a Hyundai Tucson (#10) hybrid due mid-2024. Isuzu also recently announced an EV D-Max planned for a 2025 release in Europe and 2026 release in Australia. Other models including the Toyota RAV4 (#4), MG ZS (#5), Tesla Model Y (#6), Toyota Landcruiser (#7) and Mitsubishi Outlander (#8), all have a hybrid, battery electric vehicle, or plug-in hybrid electric vehicle option available for purchase now. The Mazda CX-5 remains the only popular car without a cleaner version in the pipeline.

“On the surface this is an incredibly ambitious target which will be difficult to achieve especially for utes and large SUVs.” – James Voortman, Australian Automotive Dealer Association – Media release, 4 February 2024

The claim:

Australia is doing something difficult, and unusual.

The facts:

Introducing such standards is … well, standard. In fact, Australia is one of the last rich countries to put in place a fuel efficiency standard for new cars. The United States of America (USA) has had these in place since the 1970s; the European Union already has them; and so does New Zealand, China and Japan. 

The government is proposing our standards will start in 2025 with targets that are less strict than most other key car markets, and then seek to catch up with the USA by 2028. 

The USA has had these standards for a long time and millions of utes are still sold there each year. The only difference? Their light commercial vehicles are more efficient than those sold in Australia – producing almost 25% less pollution on average. 

“US targets are one of the most stringent in the world” – Tony Weber, Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries – Radio National, 5 Feb 2024

The claim:

By aligning Australia’s standard with a market like the US, we would be somehow taking an extreme approach.

The facts:

Both Australia and the USA are large countries where people are known to drive long distances, so it makes sense to match our standards to theirs. The USA has had such standards since the 1970s, with a proven approach to regulating vehicle efficiency.

The European Union has stricter standards, as does New Zealand just across the ditch. There’s an argument for setting even stronger targets than those proposed by the federal government, if we want to deliver the biggest savings and biggest cuts to pollution possible. But as Australia is off to the slowest start in having fuel efficiency standards at all, aligning with a market like the USA is a reasonable place to start.      

“If you take away particularly utes, they’re tools of trade, particularly for people, not just tradies in the cities, but also people in the bush.” – David Littleproud, National Leader, The Guardian, 4 February 2024

The claim:

This will affect the availability of utes and other cars some Australians need.

The facts:

Everyone can keep driving their car of choice because the proposed standards would only apply to new vehicles, not existing cars on the road today or second-hand ones that are re-sold. 

Targets apply to the average, calculated carbon pollution across a manufacturer’s entire sales each year. They don’t apply to any individual car or vehicle type, so manufacturers can keep selling a mix of cars, vans and utes just like they do today.

In the US – which has had similar standards for half a century – popular utes like the Ford Ranger, Toyota 4Runner, Tacoma and Tundra are available. The difference is that these large American cars are almost 25% more efficient than Australian equivalents because …. guess what? They have better fuel efficiency standards!

“You’ve got to understand that we’re not a big market. We’re only 26, 27 million people now in this country. So we’re not a big automotive market. And so, we’ve got to be careful about the measures we take.” – David Littleproud, Nationals Leader – Sky News, 5 February 2024

The claim:

Australia isn’t a large enough car market to attract the right vehicles.

The facts:

More than 85% of the world’s car markets (including massive markets like the USA, European Union and China) are already powering ahead with efficiency standards. The world is heading toward cleaner, and cheaper-to-run cars no matter what Australia does.

Cars sold in Australia are built for our right-hand drive market. The United Kingdom (67 million people), Japan (123 million people), Malaysia (34 million people), Singapore (6 million people) and New Zealand (5.2 million people) are just some of the other countries around the world that also use right-hand drive cars where manufacturers are already selling millions of lower and zero emissions vehicles. So sending such vehicles to Australia as well should be straightforward.

“[T]he fine for a vehicle like the Ford Ranger will be significant.” – Tony Weber, Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries – Daily Telegraph, 16 February

“[N]ew analysis shows the Ford Ranger, the top-selling car in 2023, would incur a penalty of between $11,350 and $17,950 under the proposed 2029 CO2 target, according to estimates compiled by the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries” – The Mercury, 19 February

The claim:

Cars that produce emissions higher than the target amount for Australia’s New Vehicle Efficiency Standard will face big fines, which manufacturers will pass on to buyers.  

The facts:

The New Vehicle Efficiency Standard sets an average annual emissions target across a manufacturer’s entire new car fleet. The targets do not apply to any individual vehicle. 

Manufacturers will be able to keep selling a mix of cars, utes and vans in Australia – just like they do today. It’s up to them what vehicles they sell but overall the mix must be cleaner. 

No manufacturer will have to pay fines if they do the right thing and offer a mix that includes the more efficient cars that can see Aussies save on their fuel bills.

By scaremongering about fines, the industry is effectively saying they plan to break the law and then pass the cost directly onto Aussie car buyers. That’s a huge call from supposedly reputable global car brands.

The post They would say that, wouldn’t they? Busting big auto myths about Fuel Efficiency Standards appeared first on Climate Council.

The science is clear: extracting and burning coal, oil and gas is driving climate change. New fossil fuel developments are incompatible with a safe climate. 

We’ve got ready-made alternatives: solar and wind power, backed by storage, as well as electric appliances. Electric stovetops, heaters and solar hot water systems are more affordable, easier to source and don’t emit any nasty toxins in your home. More and more Australians are recognising the health, environmental and financial benefits of switching off their dirty and inefficient gas appliances, and replacing them with clean, electric alternatives. 

In the 2023/2024 Federal Budget, the Albanese Labor Government announced a $1 billion low-interest loan package to retrofit residential properties with energy efficiency upgrades. It’s a good start, but more is needed to accelerate the managed phase-out of gas in Australian homes and businesses.   

The gas lobby is starting to look desperate.

In recent weeks, the gas industry has started offering to pay people to stay connected to the gas network. They’ve paid Australian newspapers to print baseless and fanciful claims about unproven gas alternatives and are launching a big new advertising campaign designed to mislead the public, so that they can keep profiteering from the use of fossil gas in Australia’s energy system. 

So, because the gas industry clearly needs a reminder, here are the facts. 

The Facts: 

FACT 1: Gas is a fossil fuel that worsens harmful climate change.

• Gas – like coal and oil – is a harmful fossil fuel. It’s mostly made up of methane, the second most significant greenhouse gas after carbon dioxide, and is a key driver of climate change.  
• Methane is up to 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide for its global warming potential in the short term. This means that over 20 years, one tonne of methane warms the atmosphere 84 times as much as one tonne of carbon dioxide. 
• Producing and using gas for energy creates greenhouse gas pollution at every stage of the supply chain, even before it is burned. Emissions from the extraction, processing and export of gas have helped keep Australia’s official emissions so high, cancelling out the gains we’re making from increasing renewable energy in the grid.
• Most of Australia’s remaining onshore gas reserves are held in coal seams or shale. This requires fracking; a dangerous and destructive method of gas extraction that contaminates water and farmland, and is harmful to our health. 

Case Study: Fracking in the Beetaloo Basin
The Northern Territory Government has recently made a pretty rotten decision to proceed with dangerous fracking projects, opening the door to the highly controversial Beetaloo shale gas field. This highly polluting development is projected to emit the equivalent of more than three times Australia’s annual domestic emissions over the next two decades. 
Fracking is one of the most environmentally damaging ways to extract fossil fuels. It uses many dangerous chemicals which can contaminate local land and water supplies. Tamboran Resources, one of the biggest fracking exploration companies in the Beetaloo Basin, was recently exposed by the ABC for being involved in ​​three significant fracking pollution incidents at a fracking exploration site in the Northern Territory.

All new and expanded coal or gas projects are entirely incompatible with a safe climate, and aren’t needed in our clean and thriving low-emissions economy.

FACT 2: Renewable energy now makes up more than 35% of our electricity in the National Electricity Market, while gas generation dropped below 5% in the first quarter of 2023

• An influx of new solar, wind and battery projects across Australia is securing the nation’s power supply, with the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) stating that we can transition to a fully renewable-powered grid without any new gas.
• Gas generation is falling, while renewables are soaring: in early 2023 generation from grid-scale solar and wind increased to a record quarterly average of 4,654 megawatts (MW), while gas-fired generation fell to just 1,113 MW – its lowest quarterly level since 2005. 
• The gas Australians use to cook and heat our homes is dangerous for our health. Gas cooktops contribute to indoor air pollution, and can leak harmful toxins like carbon monoxide (CO), formaldehyde, nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) and particulate matter, even when switched off.  
• NO₂ is strongly associated with asthma. In fact, a child living with gas cooking in the home has a comparable risk of asthma to a child living with household cigarette smoke.

Want to find out more about getting your home off gas, for good?

FACT 3: Almost 80% of gas produced in Australia is shipped overseas, along with the profits. 

• Australia has plenty of gas. In fact, Australia is the world’s largest exporter of liquefied gas, responsible for 24% of global exports. 
• Almost 80% of the gas extracted in Australia is exported overseas. This forces Aussies to compete with rising global export prices for our own gas, while gas companies make super profits. 
• The remaining use of gas in Australia is split across homes, manufacturing and electricity generation, but the second biggest user of gas in Australia is the gas industry itself. Liquefying gas, a necessary step in preparing gas for export, is very energy intensive, and incredibly, gas exporters use more gas running their export terminals than all of Australia’s power stations, more than all Australian manufacturing, and almost three times as much as Australian households. 
• Gas can be replaced in many of Australia’s manufacturing processes. Our report, Australia’s Clean Industry Future: Making things here in a net zero world, found that there are readily available opportunities to cut emissions today in Australia’s heavy industry, mining and manufacturing sectors, as well as many emerging solutions that will be scalable within the next five to 10 years.

FACT 4: Gas is driving up power prices in Australia

• Australian gas prices are tied to volatile international markets. The war in Ukraine has led to many countries imposing sanctions on Russian gas and oil, triggering spikes in the price of all fossil fuels. This has flow on effects for wholesale electricity and gas prices in Australia, driving your power bills up, and up, and up. 
• Gas market prices in Australia’s eastern and southern states have more than tripled over the past decade. While the gas industry argues more gas will somehow lower prices, the reality is that Australia’s supply of gas has already dramatically increased over the past several years along with our power prices. Their so-called answer – is the problem!
• Gas appliances are less efficient than electric alternatives, meaning they use more energy and are more expensive to run. A report from the Grattan Institute found that induction cooktops are more than twice as efficient as gas cooktops, reverse-cycle air conditioners are three times more efficient than gas heaters and heat-pump water heaters are four times more efficient than gas water heaters. A recent Climate Council analysis found that by electrifying the cooking, heating and hot water facilities in their homes, Australian families can save between $336 and $1,311 a year.

Want to find out how much you can save by getting off gas and making your home more energy efficient? 

It’s just a fact: burning more gas will only put more Australians in harm’s way. Australia is in the grips of the climate crisis, and being crunched by rising costs of living. Both will worsen if we don’t urgently shift away from fossil fuels and switch our energy system over to clean, renewable power. 

To reach the steep emissions reductions needed this decade to protect Australians from dangerous and accelerating climate change, we need to rapidly phase out gas from our energy system. 

The post The future of gas is small and dwindling appeared first on Climate Council.

Our experts have laid out the leading furphies we’ve seen in this federal election campaign – and likely to encounter again – around climate. Use this tool to cut through the crap, and find the facts.

What can I do if I come across dubious claims?

There are several things you can do to counter misinformation or false claims:

• If you see it in the comments section of a social media post, you can politely correct the original poster and link to an original source (linking back here would be helpful!). We’ve listed some handy points for commenting below.

• Likewise if it’s a claim published in a news article, you can directly comment on the article online. It’s always good to cite a source. 

• If you hear it during a live media interview on radio or television, Twitter can be a good place to post a correction in a timely way that grabs the outlet’s attention – be sure to tag whomever made the claim and the media outlet that broadcast it. You might also like to tag a fact checking service (see below).
  • You can submit the claim for analysis to a fact checking service. This includes the ABC’s RMIT Fact Check, or requesting a fact check via email to The Guardian Australia.

• Write a letter to the editor. Most news websites have an email address or form to submit a letter to the editor in the ‘Contact Us’ section of their website. To maximise the chances of your letter being published: keep it below 200 words and make sure you include reliable source links for statements, your full name and address, and a subject line which clearly articulates your view. If you are responding to something you’ve read in their publication make sure you reference the article headline and the publication date.
  • Here are contact details for some of the highest circulating publications in Australia:
    • Sydney Morning Herald
    • The Age
    • The Courier Mail
    • The Herald Sun
    • The Daily Telegraph

Crap Claims:

#2 – “ALL HYDROGEN IS CLEAN HYDROGEN”

“Queensland has great potential to become a clean hydrogen-producing powerhouse, with its access to local low-cost gas, carbon capture opportunities and renewables potential,” The Honorable Angus Taylor MP, Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction.

“Clean hydrogen” is being bandied around in relation to all types of hydrogen – including the type produced from fossil fuels – which is misleading.

Hydrogen can be a clean and viable solution, but be aware that not all hydrogen is produced the same way. Most hydrogen is still created using fossil fuels, and therefore is adding to the climate problem.  Only renewable hydrogen (otherwise referred to as ‘green’ hydrogen) is a clean and viable solution because it is produced with renewable electricity. Any other type of hydrogen is still polluting. 

Find out more about hydrogen here.

#4 – “AUSTRALIA’S EMISSIONS HAVE FALLEN MORE THAN THOSE OF OTHER COUNTRIES”

Prime Minister Scott Morrison and other senior Ministers in the Liberal-National Government have repeatedly and misleadingly claimed that Australia’s emissions have fallen more than those of Canada, New Zealand, the United States and Japan since 2005. The Climate Council has meticulously researched this claim and found it to be untrue.

The Government purposely chose data from 2005 to justify this statement because incredibly high rates of land clearing in Australia in that year meant that emissions were similarly high. 

The data used to justify this statement is from a year in which there were incredibly high rates of land clearing in Australia. This means the data in the base year is abnormally high and therefore becomes a flattering metric when compared against future years.

If you take land clearing out of the measurement, it’s plain as day that Australia has actually increased its overall emissions by 4% and compares very poorly to all other developed countries. 

The post 2022 Federal Election Climate Crap Checker appeared first on Climate Council.

Currently, Australia is doing very little. Our emission reduction targets are woefully inadequate and while our allies and trading partners are embracing a renewable energy future, our Federal Government is clinging to a fossil fuel past. 

Let’s get a few things straight first: climate change is accelerating, and we’re already experiencing the impacts. The science is clear, we need to focus on rapidly lowering emissions this decade. The Climate Council recommends that Australia cuts its emissions by 75% (below 2005 levels) by 2030 and reaches net zero by 2035. As a first step, Australia should at least match the commitments of comparable countries – to halve emissions this decade – ahead of Glasgow. 

COP26 is an opportunity to focus on what’s required to keep us all safe from worsening climate impacts, and tell the Federal Government it’s time to step up and start leading on climate action.

We can’t let the Government use clever turns of phrase and obscure statistics to #COPOut of climate action. So we’ve made this cheat sheet to help you cut through the spin.

What about China?

China is the world’s largest emitter, but it is taking climate action. Renewables are growing at a faster rate than coal in China, and the coal pipeline in China has shrunk dramatically since the Paris Agreement. 

Coal capacity increased in China in 2020, but at the Leaders Summit on Climate convened by US President Joe Biden in April 2021, Chinese President Xi announced that China will strictly control its coal growth until 2025 and then phase down coal consumption during the 15th five year plan. China also recently announced that it will stop financing and building coal-fired power stations overseas, following similar pledges from Japan and South Korea earlier this year. That almost completely ends international finance for coal.

China is already the world’s largest investor, producer and consumer of renewable energy. Its existing shift towards renewables has been a key factor behind the rapid decline in the cost of solar and wind technologies over the last decade.

China has also strengthened its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) to the Paris Agreement, including a commitment to peak its emissions before 2030. It has committed to achieving net zero emissions (before 2060).

This is a significantly stronger commitment than anything China has previously made and the latest commitments are also unconditional, which is a big deal for a developing country that is home to more than 1.4 billion people. 

China, like almost all countries, is going to need to do much more over the coming years. But the best way for Australia to encourage greater global action is to get our own house in order, start driving down our own emissions, and start unlocking our potential as a major exporter of clean energy. And right now we’re doing exactly the opposite; in fact, when you divvy up China’s emissions per person it is less than half of Australia’s.

Australia is kind of a big deal

Australia is the biggest emitter per capita of any large country in the world. By greenhouse gas emissions, Australia is the third largest exporter of fossil fuels. Despite being blessed with options to reduce emissions, Australia also has one of the weakest targets in the world. We are routinely rated last, or near to last, in assessments that rank countries on their climate performance. What we do matters, and at the moment we have so much catching up to do.

Net zero vs cuts this decade

The climate crisis is accelerating, and what we do over the next decade will determine how much worse the impacts become. Just as every cigarette does you damage, every tonne of emissions is causing us harm. That also means that every tonne of emissions we can avoid and every degree of global warming that we can prevent makes a tangible difference.

The science is clear: Australia should aim to reduce emissions by 75% (below 2005 levels) by 2030 and reach net zero emissions by 2035. As a first step, Australia should at least raise our targets to be in line with our peers.

The important thing to remember is that net zero targets mean little without a concrete plan to cut emissions this decade. The lion’s share of emissions cuts need to occur this decade if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change.

Learn more about what a good net zero emissions target looks like and how we can achieve it here.

If you really care, then why do you fly/drive/eat meat?

Did you know that just 100 companies are responsible for 71% of global emissions? And that only 20 fossil fuel companies have been responsible for more than a third of all greenhouse gas emissions since 1965? Or, that if you include our exported fossil fuels Australia is the third biggest emitter in the world?

Climate change is a big, global problem and it has big, global solutions. While personal action makes a difference – in fact, here’s a list of things you can do – we as individuals don’t have the power to make wholesale structural changes that would alter how our societies are powered, moved around and fed. That power sits with world leaders and CEOs of major corporations.

The post Don’t let the Australian Government #COPOut on climate appeared first on Climate Council.

We know it’s sometimes hard to explain the link between bushfires and climate change with your family and friends. Here’s a quick guide, backed by science, for how you can have a conversation about these issues.

Stay safe and remember to listen to the advice of emergency services.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE PRINTABLE GUIDE

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE PRINTABLE GUIDE

DOWNLOAD THE PRINTABLE BOOKLET HERE

Join the Climate Council to learn about how you can get involved in climate action today.

Read more conversation guides:

Summer BBQ Guide – Talking Energy

Mythbusting Guide for Christmas BBQs

Conversation Guide: Explaining Climate and Weather 

The post This is not normal: Explaining Bushfires and Climate Change appeared first on Climate Council.

As we move into the festive season and our time is filled with catch-ups and family reunions, conversations about climate change can get tricky. So we’ve put together some tips for turning an ordinary conversation about the weather into something a lot more interesting, and far more important: climate change. 

There’s no need to sweat those awkward moments: come prepared with our Conversation Guide: Explaining Climate and Weather.

DOWNLOAD THE PRINTABLE BOOKLET HERE

DOWNLOAD THE PRINTABLE BOOKLET HERE

Join the Climate Council to learn about how you can get involved in climate action today.

Read more conversation guides:

Summer BBQ Guide – Talking Energy

Mythbusting Guide for Christmas BBQs

The post Conversation Guide: Explaining Climate and Weather appeared first on Climate Council.

When it comes to energy, we know there’s a whole lot of misinformation kicking around. Whether it’s pollies cherry-picking information, or the media using complex jargon, it can be enough to leave anyone confused. So if the talk at your next BBQ moves to coal or questioning climate action, this year you can be equipped with the facts.

There’s no need to sweat those awkward moments: come prepared with our Summer BBQ Guide – Talking Energy.  It’s chock-full of ways to answer common questions about Australian energy. 

Soon, you’ll be ready to talk energy with the best of them. And make sure that barbie doesn’t sizzle out…

DOWNLOAD THE PRINTABLE BOOKLET HERE

Interested in some more mythbusting facts? Read our Electricity Prices Guide: Sorting Fact From Fiction. After reading this, you’ll be able to answer some common questions on electricity prices.

The post Summer BBQ Guide: Talking Energy appeared first on Climate Council.