<
https://theconversation.com/rapid-climate-action-will-come-at-a-cost-according-to-the-business-council-but-experts-say-the-benefits-are-far-larger-264694>
"This month, the Australian government will release its emissions-reduction
target for 2035, likely to be between 65% and 75%. A 70% cut would mean
reducing Australia’s emissions from about 440 million tonnes of carbon dioxide
equivalent down to 132 million tonnes.
Ahead of its release, a split has emerged over whether achieving rapid cuts to
emissions in ten years will be a net cost or benefit to Australia. Last week,
Australia’s top business lobby group released a report suggesting A$500 billion
of investment would be needed to cut emissions 70% by 2035.
The report, by the Business Council of Australia, calls for an “ambitious” but
“achievable” 2035 target on the path to net zero. But this report seems more
likely to be used as ammunition by those opposing an ambitious target, because
it includes costs – but no benefits. By contrast, an earlier Business Council
report suggested climate action would give GDP a boost.
Cutting emissions requires both public and private investment. It can also spur
on new industries. Climate change is already costing a great deal of money and
will cost far more if allowed to continue unchecked.
Is climate action a net cost or benefit? To date, the most detailed analysis in
both Australia and the United Kingdom give the same answer: when the escalating
damage done by climate change is accounted for, climate action has vastly more
benefit than cost."
Cheers,
*** Xanni ***
--
mailto:xanni@xanadu.net Andrew Pam
http://xanadu.com.au/ Chief Scientist, Xanadu
https://glasswings.com.au/ Partner, Glass Wings
https://sericyb.com.au/ Manager, Serious Cybernetics
