animal agriculture climate emissions

Why Abbott Is Right on Dumping Paris Accord

Earlier this month, former Prime Minister Tony Abbott called for Australia to follow the US and exit the Paris Climate deal. Not surprisingly, he was howled down by the greenies and their politically correct allies.

But Abbott has a very strong point.

The cost to everyday Australians of meeting the Paris Accord emission reductions continues to grow. While any tangible benefits remain unknown…at best.

Keeping in mind that the world is forecast to add roughly 2.5 billion more people over the next 30 years, Australia could cease to exist and not make any meaningful impact in the global reduction of CO2.

And that is assuming scientists’ theories on the needed reductions to CO2 are anywhere close to correct. Quite an assumption.

Yes, Australia should continue to take steps to reduce pollution. But meeting the dubious Paris reductions will be costly to households and industry alike. And now the nation’s cattle farmers are in the crosshairs as well.

That’s right…

Strike up the barbecue, Australia will have to get rid of nearly three million beef cattle and eight million sheep if agriculture is made to reduce its emissions by a quarter, modelling shows.

The sector would be forced to reduce 2005-level emissions by 26% by 2030, if the same target is locked in for the electricity sector as part of the Turnbull government’s signature energy policy.

The target, part of Australia’s commitment to reduce overall emissions by 26–28%, has been a sticking point in securing support from all states and territories for the National Energy Guarantee.

A report by the Australia Institute on Wednesday says the target would require an 18.7 million tonne reduction in emissions every year.

This approach imposes significant costs on agriculture and other sectors that do not have the existing commercially available technologies for emissions reduction that the electricity sector currently enjoys,’ report author and senior economist Matt Grudnoff said.

To meet the target, Australia would need to have 2.9 million fewer beef cattle — the equivalent of all the beef cattle in Victoria and South Australia combined, the report says.

There would also need to be eight million fewer sheep, 290,000 fewer dairy cows and 270,000 pigs.

Grazing beef cattle producing methane are responsible for the most emissions in the agriculture sector, followed by sheep, dairy and cropping.

Under current emissions reduction policies, agriculture emissions are still expected to rise over the next decade, with beef expected to be responsible for half of that increase.

Mr Grudnoff said requiring greater emissions reductions in the electricity sector would mean agriculture is required to do less, reducing the cost to the industry.

The Australian Tribune with AAP

PS: The tax burden on Australians has grown by leaps and bounds in our lifetime, and shows little sign of reversing. But if you think you know who’s responsible, you may be surprised by the information in our new free report, ‘What you could do to stop Australia’s Tax Freedom Day from blowing out even further in 2018’. Click here for more.

The Australian Tribune with AAP

The Australian Tribune with AAP

Comments: 5

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *

  1. What about the benefits of alternative power sources? A lot has been said about how that will reduce energy costs substantially. What about our kids? Do they get a say? The time for action is now. Every little bit counts even if our effort to reduce carbon won’t change the world, at least other countries can look to us and say “Hey they are reacting to this ominous threat, maybe we should do.” No I’m not a “Greeny”, but I do have children who have to live in this world you are advocating for. Or do you think its fine that they pay the price because we didn’t.

  2. No one commenting on this that’s strange ,its a touche subject I for one would just like habitats like trees re introduced its a much better way than a carbon tax and its actually what the planet needs , trees create cover on low lying areas make old streams back to life there’s so many things we could do but no let’s tax the fuck out of everything Fabian dicjheads and taking things only makes it more expensive making us poor with less money to spend on renewables if we chose those carbon tax is a dumb idea

  3. When will commonsense prevail? Over the last 15-20 years Australians have in the main become excellent at reducing waste, recycling materials, energy efficiency, reduction of litter, utilising technology for a range of efficiencies, and so on. We continue to do better. Most of us are already taking all practical steps to mitigate our environmental prints, and we already have a whole swag of regulations that lend themselves to this strategy, so to be additionally signed up to some draconian contract that must be enforced come hell or high water is just idiotic and totally unnecessary regardless of what you believe about climate changes and who is causing it.
    I don’t think any Australian is going to wilfully head the other direction in the event Australia leaves the Paris agreement, in fact the response will be quite the different: What Australians will do is go back to using commonsense and will continue to innovate and develop techniques and technologies that improve our futures, both environmentally and economically. The Paris agreement ignores the latter. Australians don’t need to be tax-bashed to force innovation. We do it anyway.
    Abbot is correct.
    To all those who think Abbot is wrong and that the Paris agreement is a good thing, I would say you are trying to take Australia down a pompous, unrealistic, idealistic, and damaging path. Of course your pretext is that the sky is going to fall in and that we can all be saved by a tax. You probably also have fairies in the bottom of your garden.
    I suppose if we just tax the crap out of everything, the long view is that people will eventually not be able to afford to do anything and will have to burn stuff just to keep warm. That of course could become academic as it depends on whether we will be allowed to grow enough food (or if we will have any economically viable farmers left to do it for us), in which case only the wealthy will be able to afford food due to limited supply & overwhelming demand.
    The point is that Australia does not need to be part of any such agreement. It is not in our interests at all, and we are intelligent enough to handle such issues our way by ourselves. Our politicians are there to manage our affairs for us and in our interests before the interests of anybody else or any other country. They should stop working against us with things like the Paris agreement.

  4. Ah yes, here we go, the farting cow fiasco. Talk about the pot belly calling the kettle black! The real culprit for global warming is political flatulence.

  5. The way to save the planet is to leave it. Outside of Earth’s atmosphere solar energy bathes you in unlimited power, you need to be shielded from it. A few minutes of solar output is more energy than the whole Earth uses each year, we just need to capture a fraction of that. There are unlimited raw materials of every metal or mineral you need in the asteroid belt – no more mining on Earth needed at all. If humanity is to survive we need to spread the risk – colonize Mars. A stray asteroid could make all the issues on Earth we face a moot point.