Comments on: National Climate Action Framework http://www.climatemovement.org.au/2008/06/national-climate-action-framework/ Connecting communities active on climate change Fri, 15 Apr 2011 12:45:46 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Jonathan http://www.climatemovement.org.au/2008/06/national-climate-action-framework/comment-page-1/#comment-4 Jonathan Wed, 30 Jul 2008 06:47:42 +0000 http://sustainableplaces.org.au/cm/?p=4#comment-4 The intro to the position paper is good, but there's a disconnect: suddenly it jumps to your targets, without any attempt to justify them. "Turning around our emissions by 2010, halving Australia’s 1990 emissions by 2020 and aiming for national carbon neutrality by 2040". Surely in the absence of any further analysis (and I think we're past calling for "more research") the only justifiable target is to cut emissions as far and as fast as humanly possible, through a genuine emergency response. We won't know what's possible until we try it, so let's just GET ON WITH IT at full speed and with all our resources. Practically speaking, how would these NCC/GetUp targets compare with Al Gore's challenge to the US: "100% carbon-free electricity within 10 years"? I know this came out after your paper, but I think it's stronger, easier to remember, and more inspiring. Will NCC support this goal for Australia? Also, here's a fourth flaw in the IPCC targets in the table - they assume climate sensitivity of 3°C, when according to Hansen paleoclimate records give a longer-term sensitivity of 6°C. See eg http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/10/1/131321/083 The intro to the position paper is good, but there’s a disconnect: suddenly it jumps to your targets, without any attempt to justify them. “Turning around our emissions by 2010, halving Australia’s 1990 emissions by 2020 and aiming for national carbon neutrality by 2040″.

Surely in the absence of any further analysis (and I think we’re past calling for “more research”) the only justifiable target is to cut emissions as far and as fast as humanly possible, through a genuine emergency response. We won’t know what’s possible until we try it, so let’s just GET ON WITH IT at full speed and with all our resources.

Practically speaking, how would these NCC/GetUp targets compare with Al Gore’s challenge to the US: “100% carbon-free electricity within 10 years”?

I know this came out after your paper, but I think it’s stronger, easier to remember, and more inspiring.

Will NCC support this goal for Australia?

Also, here’s a fourth flaw in the IPCC targets in the table – they assume climate sensitivity of 3°C, when according to Hansen paleoclimate records give a longer-term sensitivity of 6°C. See eg http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/10/1/131321/083

]]>