Australia can cut emissions by 30% for less than $1 a day

Back

A report by Global Management consultants McKinsey & Co has found Australia could reduce emissions by 30 per cent by 2020, and it would cost Australian families less than $1 a day. "Emission reductions of at least 30 per cent by 2020 - the sort of cuts the scientists are saying we need to avoid dangerous climate change - are achievable and affordable," said Australian Conservation Foundation's climate change program manager Tony Mohr.

“The cost per person is about the same as the cost of one local phone call per day - a small price for saving the Great Barrier Reef, our water supplies and the agricultural sector.”

The results are consistent with those of the Australian Business Roundtable on Climate Change which found deep cuts could be achieved by 2050 “while maintaining strong economic growth”.

“The 2002-03 drought cost Australia $10 billion. The total cost of a 30 per cent cut in emissions by 2020 is less than a third of this at $2.9 billion,” Mr Mohr said.

“If we fail to reduce emissions, the CSIRO says by 2030 Australia will experience drought 20 per cent more often than we do now.

“Not only are these cuts achievable and affordable, they are in Australia’s national interest.”

The McKinsey report found Australia could cut emissions by 60 per cent by 2030 - a full 20 years ahead of the Federal Government’s commitment to 60 per cent reductions by 2050.

The report also found Australia’s opportunities to reduce emissions are better than the global average and that we can do it “without major technological breakthroughs”.

“Cutting emissions by 30 per cent by 2020 can be done without using technologies that are yet to be proven or resorting to drastic, risky options like nuclear,” Mr Mohr said.

"We have to establish a national scheme to motivate carbon-reducing behaviour and we should participate in the global framework such as CDM (clean development mechanism)" he said.

The modelling does not include lifestyle changes like getting rid of air conditioners, cycling, walking, using public transport and taking shorter showers - that would lead to greater household savings were not included in the study.

It really just sticks to technologies that are already out there, that could be brought on a little bit quicker in order to reduce emissions.

It looks at the use of existing technology like solar and wind power and did not factor in nuclear power, saying it was not environmentally viable.

ACF spokesman Tony Mohr says the environmental effort does not need to stop there.
"As a nation if we do make lifestyle changes in the same way that we have on water use then we could see bigger cuts in emissions again," he said.

The report confirms that significant emissions cuts require prompt action from government, business and households, so if we are going to play our part in avoiding dangerous climate we are going to have to get cracking.