Australia’s chief scientist, Alan Finkel, has spoken out in defence of the recent Climate Change Authority (CCA) review on how to meet the nation’s obligations under the Paris agreement, which was criticised by two members of the authority.
Guardian Australia revealed this month that the economist Clive Hamilton and the climate scientist David Karoly wrote a dissenting report. They argued the official report privileged “political feasibility” over environmental effectiveness and economic efficiency, resulting in a “dog’s breakfast” of policies.
The official CCA report delivered recommendations on how to meet Australia’s 2030 targets of 26% to 28% below 2005 levels.
But many commentators have pointed out that those targets were not consistent with Australia’s legal obligation under the Paris agreement, which is to keep temperatures “well below” 2C of warming.
Karoly and Hamilton argued the official report therefore failed to respond to its terms of reference.
They produced their own recommendations, which included adopting a “carbon budget” approach to setting climate policy, reflecting the agreement made in Paris to stay “well below” 2C.
In a speech to the International Network for Government Science Advice conference in Brussels on Thursday, Finkel – himself a member of the authority – spoke out about the debate for the first time.
He criticised “clickbait” media reporting on the issue and defended the official report, arguing it was not written in a “perfect world” and rejecting the dissenting members’ view of the terms of reference.
Finkel said: “In a perfect world, we might have been asked how to transform the country to 24/7 near-zero emissions energy – as soon as possible.
“But that’s beside the point. When you are asked for advice, you look at the question and you commit to the process if you believe that you can answer that question in a helpful way.
“The report that the CCA delivered answers to that brief. And I believe it does so in a manner that is not just deeply considered and evidence-based, but clever.”
Finkel argued the response to the report was based on uninformed opinions of people who had not read it.
“When people actually read the report – rather than responding to the hasty judgments of others in clickbait headlines – they were genuinely impressed,” he said.
“But there’s the rub – reading a long report takes time. Reflecting on it takes effort. It’s not surprising that the initial response was to cover the imagined politics of the CCA, not the substance of its report. It is deeply regrettable that the spotlight was gone before the more considered commentators had their chance to respond.”
The official report recommended an emissions intensity scheme for the electricity sector, a strengthening of the “safeguard” mechanism in the Coalition’s direct action policy and regulations to cover vehicle emissions.
“I welcome the CCA’s efforts to bring the focus back to where it should be: what can we do today that is affordable, reliable and delivers on the commitments we made in Paris,” Finkel said.
The Climate Council, the Greens, other climate groups and experts, including the ANU’s Frank Jotzo, also criticised the official report.
Jotzo said the majority report was “piecemeal and lacks a vision for the longer-term policy framework needed to get Australia on track to a low-carbon economy”.
“The intent clearly is to help policy progress in the medium term,” he said. “But it risks locking in a policy suite that will not deliver much, or may cost too much.
“If the CCA’s recommendations are misconstrued as being ambitious, we could end up with policy that falls far short of these recommendations. And if its political judgments are off the mark, the CCA’s specific recommendations could become an obstacle for the government’s 2017 policy review.”
Finkel encouraged the public to read the summary of the official CCA report themselves.
