Emissions targets just magic pudding

Reported, The South East Councils Climate Change Alliance, has set a 67% emissions reduction target to contain global warming within 1.5 degrees C.

No mention of net zero emissions by 2030. 

But no target from the Bass Coast Shire. 

Such targets sound grand but are not achievable in any practical sense by local government who have no control over 90% emissions reduction strategies, e.g. electrical generation. So, such statements are just noise.

But I would suggest this group catch up with their climate change reading. 

The world has unfortunately already missed that target as suggested by the new  book, “HotHouse Earth, an inhabitants guide” by Bill McGuire.  

This book is an excellent starting point if you want a current real status report on Global climate change. 

A concerning read but not the “scare the horses stuff that we are going to a climate hell”, as promoted by many climate activists.  

Its main premise is that we now need to learn to live the effects of climate since the evidence is very strong that the 1.5 rise window is now closed. 

Even if all countries stand by their pledges to reduce carbon emissions COP26 meeting in Glasgow it will still be difficult to achieve the 45% reduction target by 2030 with temperature rises expected to range between 1.8 and 2.0 degrees C. Still a liveable increase.

The Federal government has set 43% reduction target in GHG emissions. 

So why engage in grand standing when your organisation has no control over the process.  

The Chair of SECCCA is also the Bass Coast Shire Mayor, who reportedly said that Shire is not wedded to the 67% recommendation. 

So it is reasonable to ask just what is the BCSC signalling. 

My reading of their Climate Action Plan, “The Plan” is a 100% reduction in GHG emissions by 2030. See the Executive Summary trajectory graph. 

Yet later the “Plan” admits that the Shire has no control over, or the alibility to reduce the estimated 600,000 tonnes of carbon emissions per annum generated in the Shire.  

The Federal reduction target yields 342,000 tonnes (ce) and the SECCCA target yields 162000 tonnes (ce) by 2030 for Bass Coast. 

Based on these figures BCSC Plan is an emissions magic pudding. 

In my view its action plan is not achievable, and is no more than an aspirational public relations exercise.  

Please at least come up with an achievable and sensible plan for those emissions you can measure and control, and not rely on declaring climate emergencies, and leave the big reductions to the other governments who have the necessary power.

One area of emissions reduction that can be influenced directly by the BCSC is through planning for the construction of the built environment, in other words real estate development. 

Yet this area, which can contribute up to 35% in total GHG emissions and is expected to grow by 50% by 2050 is not included in the “Plan”. 

Why? New suburb construction can immediately contribute 27% to increasing greenhouse gases. But emissions control in the construction industries means both reductions in developer return on investment and tax farming via new rates from new houses. 

Not attractive to a local government. 

In this area, if the BCSC allows in the future another North Wonthaggi style development, then it has failed its climate emergency declaration and shows that it is not serious about climate change. 

Yes, it is imperative that housing needs to be provided, but let us give people a better choice for their future.

Rod Gallagher, Inverloch