Pacific nations applaud 'lifeline' climate ruling
The non-binding advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice at The Hague in the Netherlands paves the way to require high carbon-emitting countries to pay reparations to low-emitting countries.
"For young people and for future generations, this opinion is a lifeline and an opportunity to protect all that we hold dear," said Vishal Prashad, the director of a group of island law students who spearheaded the campaign with the backing of the Vanuatu government.
"Today is historic for climate justice and we are one step closer to realising this."
Vanuatu's government had been engaging the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change for 30 years before the decision, the nation's climate change adaptation minister Ralph Regenvanu said.
"Today's ruling confirmed states do have legal obligations to act on climate change," Mr Regenvanu told reporters.
"And these obligations are grounded in international law, they're grounded in human rights law, and in the duty to protect our environment."
Australia's response to the ruling would dramatically impact its relationships with Pacific neighbours, La Trobe University anthropology and development lecturer Aidan Craney said.
"We can either show solidarity or lose all legitimacy," he said.
The legality of Australia's continued support for and subsidisation of fossil fuel projects could come under scrutiny after the decision, Grata Fund founder Isabelle Reinecke said.
"This historic ruling by the world's highest court officially marks the end of an era of states ducking and weaving legal responsibility for climate harm," she said
The international court's opinion would pave the way for exchanges between climate change-impacted states and large polluting nations over reparations, Australian National University international law expert Donald Rothwell said.
"If settlements are not reached there is now a clearer pathway forward for international climate litigation by the specially impacted states," he said.
Importantly, all states - not just signatories to the Climate Change Convention, the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement - would face obligations under the court's advice.
While no judgment had been issued, advisory opinions could still be very influential in the interpretation and development of international law.
"In this way, the ICJ advisory opinion does not only clarify existing rules, it creates legal momentum," said Sebastien Duyck, senior attorney at the Center For International Environmental Law.
ActionAid Australia executive director Michelle Higelin said the ruling was clear and Australia must play its part to keep global heating to 1.5C.
"This is not a choice, this is an obligation to take stronger and more urgent action," she said.
ActionAid wants the government to "urgently" transition away from fossil fuels and support climate adaptation efforts in low-income countries.
Oxfam climate change policy lead Nafkote Dabi agreed.
"Rich countries have to increase their financing to Global South countries to help them reduce emissions and protect their people from past and future harm," Ms Dabi said.
"This is not a wish-list – it is international law."
Global science and policy institute, Climate Analytics, which has an Australia-Pacific region office, said the finding foreshadowed potentially serious legal penalties.
Action could be taken under customary international law if countries climate targets undershoot the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.
Australia's commitment to the agreement includes reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 43 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.
"The degradation of the climate system and of other parts of the environment impairs the enjoyment of a range of rights protected by human rights law," presiding judge Yuji Iwasawa said, handing down the court's opinion.
The court decision "confirms that states' obligations to protect human rights require taking measures to protect the climate system ... including mitigation and adaptation measures," Judge Hilary Charlesworth, an Australian member of the court, said in a separate opinion.
A response was sought from the federal government.
Australia and other nations have an obligation to curb carbon emissions and to redress climate change damage in other countries, an international court has found.
The non-binding advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice at The Hague in the Netherlands paves the way to require high carbon-emitting countries to pay reparations to low-emitting countries.
"For young people and for future generations, this opinion is a lifeline and an opportunity to protect all that we hold dear," said Vishal Prashad, the director of a group of island law students who spearheaded the campaign with the backing of the Vanuatu government.
"Today is historic for climate justice and we are one step closer to realising this."
Vanuatu's government had been engaging the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change for 30 years before the decision, the nation's climate change adaptation minister Ralph Regenvanu said.
"Today's ruling confirmed states do have legal obligations to act on climate change," Mr Regenvanu told reporters.
"And these obligations are grounded in international law, they're grounded in human rights law, and in the duty to protect our environment."
Australia's response to the ruling would dramatically impact its relationships with Pacific neighbours, La Trobe University anthropology and development lecturer Aidan Craney said.
"We can either show solidarity or lose all legitimacy," he said.
The legality of Australia's continued support for and subsidisation of fossil fuel projects could come under scrutiny after the decision, Grata Fund founder Isabelle Reinecke said.
"This historic ruling by the world's highest court officially marks the end of an era of states ducking and weaving legal responsibility for climate harm," she said
The international court's opinion would pave the way for exchanges between climate change-impacted states and large polluting nations over reparations, Australian National University international law expert Donald Rothwell said.
"If settlements are not reached there is now a clearer pathway forward for international climate litigation by the specially impacted states," he said.
Importantly, all states - not just signatories to the Climate Change Convention, the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement - would face obligations under the court's advice.
While no judgment had been issued, advisory opinions could still be very influential in the interpretation and development of international law.
"In this way, the ICJ advisory opinion does not only clarify existing rules, it creates legal momentum," said Sebastien Duyck, senior attorney at the Center For International Environmental Law.
ActionAid Australia executive director Michelle Higelin said the ruling was clear and Australia must play its part to keep global heating to 1.5C.
"This is not a choice, this is an obligation to take stronger and more urgent action," she said.
ActionAid wants the government to "urgently" transition away from fossil fuels and support climate adaptation efforts in low-income countries.
Oxfam climate change policy lead Nafkote Dabi agreed.
"Rich countries have to increase their financing to Global South countries to help them reduce emissions and protect their people from past and future harm," Ms Dabi said.
"This is not a wish-list – it is international law."
Global science and policy institute, Climate Analytics, which has an Australia-Pacific region office, said the finding foreshadowed potentially serious legal penalties.
Action could be taken under customary international law if countries climate targets undershoot the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.
Australia's commitment to the agreement includes reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 43 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.
"The degradation of the climate system and of other parts of the environment impairs the enjoyment of a range of rights protected by human rights law," presiding judge Yuji Iwasawa said, handing down the court's opinion.
The court decision "confirms that states' obligations to protect human rights require taking measures to protect the climate system ... including mitigation and adaptation measures," Judge Hilary Charlesworth, an Australian member of the court, said in a separate opinion.
A response was sought from the federal government.
Australia and other nations have an obligation to curb carbon emissions and to redress climate change damage in other countries, an international court has found.
The non-binding advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice at The Hague in the Netherlands paves the way to require high carbon-emitting countries to pay reparations to low-emitting countries.
"For young people and for future generations, this opinion is a lifeline and an opportunity to protect all that we hold dear," said Vishal Prashad, the director of a group of island law students who spearheaded the campaign with the backing of the Vanuatu government.
"Today is historic for climate justice and we are one step closer to realising this."
Vanuatu's government had been engaging the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change for 30 years before the decision, the nation's climate change adaptation minister Ralph Regenvanu said.
"Today's ruling confirmed states do have legal obligations to act on climate change," Mr Regenvanu told reporters.
"And these obligations are grounded in international law, they're grounded in human rights law, and in the duty to protect our environment."
Australia's response to the ruling would dramatically impact its relationships with Pacific neighbours, La Trobe University anthropology and development lecturer Aidan Craney said.
"We can either show solidarity or lose all legitimacy," he said.
The legality of Australia's continued support for and subsidisation of fossil fuel projects could come under scrutiny after the decision, Grata Fund founder Isabelle Reinecke said.
"This historic ruling by the world's highest court officially marks the end of an era of states ducking and weaving legal responsibility for climate harm," she said
The international court's opinion would pave the way for exchanges between climate change-impacted states and large polluting nations over reparations, Australian National University international law expert Donald Rothwell said.
"If settlements are not reached there is now a clearer pathway forward for international climate litigation by the specially impacted states," he said.
Importantly, all states - not just signatories to the Climate Change Convention, the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement - would face obligations under the court's advice.
While no judgment had been issued, advisory opinions could still be very influential in the interpretation and development of international law.
"In this way, the ICJ advisory opinion does not only clarify existing rules, it creates legal momentum," said Sebastien Duyck, senior attorney at the Center For International Environmental Law.
ActionAid Australia executive director Michelle Higelin said the ruling was clear and Australia must play its part to keep global heating to 1.5C.
"This is not a choice, this is an obligation to take stronger and more urgent action," she said.
ActionAid wants the government to "urgently" transition away from fossil fuels and support climate adaptation efforts in low-income countries.
Oxfam climate change policy lead Nafkote Dabi agreed.
"Rich countries have to increase their financing to Global South countries to help them reduce emissions and protect their people from past and future harm," Ms Dabi said.
"This is not a wish-list – it is international law."
Global science and policy institute, Climate Analytics, which has an Australia-Pacific region office, said the finding foreshadowed potentially serious legal penalties.
Action could be taken under customary international law if countries climate targets undershoot the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.
Australia's commitment to the agreement includes reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 43 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.
"The degradation of the climate system and of other parts of the environment impairs the enjoyment of a range of rights protected by human rights law," presiding judge Yuji Iwasawa said, handing down the court's opinion.
The court decision "confirms that states' obligations to protect human rights require taking measures to protect the climate system ... including mitigation and adaptation measures," Judge Hilary Charlesworth, an Australian member of the court, said in a separate opinion.
A response was sought from the federal government.
Australia and other nations have an obligation to curb carbon emissions and to redress climate change damage in other countries, an international court has found.
The non-binding advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice at The Hague in the Netherlands paves the way to require high carbon-emitting countries to pay reparations to low-emitting countries.
"For young people and for future generations, this opinion is a lifeline and an opportunity to protect all that we hold dear," said Vishal Prashad, the director of a group of island law students who spearheaded the campaign with the backing of the Vanuatu government.
"Today is historic for climate justice and we are one step closer to realising this."
Vanuatu's government had been engaging the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change for 30 years before the decision, the nation's climate change adaptation minister Ralph Regenvanu said.
"Today's ruling confirmed states do have legal obligations to act on climate change," Mr Regenvanu told reporters.
"And these obligations are grounded in international law, they're grounded in human rights law, and in the duty to protect our environment."
Australia's response to the ruling would dramatically impact its relationships with Pacific neighbours, La Trobe University anthropology and development lecturer Aidan Craney said.
"We can either show solidarity or lose all legitimacy," he said.
The legality of Australia's continued support for and subsidisation of fossil fuel projects could come under scrutiny after the decision, Grata Fund founder Isabelle Reinecke said.
"This historic ruling by the world's highest court officially marks the end of an era of states ducking and weaving legal responsibility for climate harm," she said
The international court's opinion would pave the way for exchanges between climate change-impacted states and large polluting nations over reparations, Australian National University international law expert Donald Rothwell said.
"If settlements are not reached there is now a clearer pathway forward for international climate litigation by the specially impacted states," he said.
Importantly, all states - not just signatories to the Climate Change Convention, the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement - would face obligations under the court's advice.
While no judgment had been issued, advisory opinions could still be very influential in the interpretation and development of international law.
"In this way, the ICJ advisory opinion does not only clarify existing rules, it creates legal momentum," said Sebastien Duyck, senior attorney at the Center For International Environmental Law.
ActionAid Australia executive director Michelle Higelin said the ruling was clear and Australia must play its part to keep global heating to 1.5C.
"This is not a choice, this is an obligation to take stronger and more urgent action," she said.
ActionAid wants the government to "urgently" transition away from fossil fuels and support climate adaptation efforts in low-income countries.
Oxfam climate change policy lead Nafkote Dabi agreed.
"Rich countries have to increase their financing to Global South countries to help them reduce emissions and protect their people from past and future harm," Ms Dabi said.
"This is not a wish-list – it is international law."
Global science and policy institute, Climate Analytics, which has an Australia-Pacific region office, said the finding foreshadowed potentially serious legal penalties.
Action could be taken under customary international law if countries climate targets undershoot the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.
Australia's commitment to the agreement includes reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 43 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.
"The degradation of the climate system and of other parts of the environment impairs the enjoyment of a range of rights protected by human rights law," presiding judge Yuji Iwasawa said, handing down the court's opinion.
The court decision "confirms that states' obligations to protect human rights require taking measures to protect the climate system ... including mitigation and adaptation measures," Judge Hilary Charlesworth, an Australian member of the court, said in a separate opinion.
A response was sought from the federal government.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
6 days ago
- ABC News
Net zero? That's so 2021! Why the Paris Agreement is under fire from the political left and right - ABC Religion & Ethics
You can hear Garrett Cullity discuss the ethics and politics of net zero with Waleed Aly and Scott Stephens this week on The Minefield. Australia's roller-coaster ride with climate policy is now turning, predictably, into a tussle over net zero. Under the Morrison government, Australia eventually got around to adopting a net zero target in 2021. Now there are calls to abandon it. The net zero project, according to the critics, is a scam. These criticisms come from both the political left and the political right. From the left, the complaint is that the adoption of net zero targets is a smokescreen for business as usual. A net zero target is a commitment that any greenhouse gas you emit into the atmosphere will be balanced by the amount you remove, by some future date — 2050 being the most popular. But then it's just a license to keep burning fossil fuels, pumping the emissions into the atmosphere, while promising to figure out some way of removing them later on. Meanwhile, from the right, the complaint is that tying ourselves to a net zero target is domestically destructive and geopolitically naïve. With global emissions still rising, the United States has now pulled out of the Paris Agreement while China (which is responsible for 35 per cent of global emissions) operates 1,100 coal-fired power stations (Australia has 19) and builds more new ones than at any time in the last decade, all the while telling the world it will reach net zero by 2060. Thus, while we cripple our own industrial capacity and burden the regions with an expensive energy transition, China presses ahead burning as much coal as it needs to satisfy our consumer demand for solar panels and electric cars. These criticisms are unsurprising, and they get their force from the fact that there's some truth in them. But they're more unrealistic than the climate policies they criticise. To understand why, we need some context — from philosophy and from history. The collective action problem Anthropogenic climate change shares some features of what philosophers and social scientists call a 'collective action problem', with one crucial difference. A collective action problem is a situation where, if each member of a group serves his or her own interests best, everyone ends up worse off than they would have been had they exercised more restraint. That might sound impossible, but it's actually common. Overfishing, pollution, vaccination, traffic congestion — a lot of problems we face as groups have that structure. However many fish others are catching, you will be individually better off maximising your catch; but if everyone does that, there are fewer fish to catch. In small groups, we can solve collective action problems by relying on pro-social emotions: a sense of fairness, pride in what we achieve as a group, and shame at the idea of being a bludger. Indeed, according to some philosophers, this is fundamentally where morality comes from — it is a set of pro-social emotions and dispositions favoured by evolution because it helps groups to cooperate and thereby solve those problems. However, as groups get larger, those solutions tend to stop working. To solve large-scale collective action problems, we need effective regulation: a set of rules spelling out how many fish you're allowed to catch, together with effective penalties for breaking the rules. The problem of global climate change is especially difficult for two main reasons. First, it is truly global in scale, deeply implicated in the way the global economy works, and diffused: the effects of climate change are spread across the world. But we have no effective global regulator to enforce a set of global climate rules and penalties. The second reason comes from the way in which climate change is different from collective action problems, in a crucial respect. Is it really true that if we took the action that is necessary to prevent climate change from worsening, that would be better for everyone ? Not so. If you're old and rich, you're better off taking all the advantages of lavish resource use, and leaving the problems to be dealt with later, by someone else. Ordinary collective action problems can get solved when there's a powerful enough regulator available to impose effective rules, and it's in everyone's interest to agree to this. But with global climate change, neither of those things is true. There's a powerful incentive for each generation to take the benefits of unrestricted resource use and pass the buck to the next one. From Kyoto to Paris What, then, can we do? The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which was adopted in 1992 and came into effect in 1994, formulated a set of principles for international climate action and a schedule of annual meetings — the Conference of the Parties (COP) meetings that happen each November. Since then, two main strategies have been attempted. The first one failed, and we're now trying another one. The first legally binding international climate treaty was agreed at Kyoto in 1997. There, the idea was to negotiate national emissions reduction targets with agreed penalties for non-performance. This suffered from two fatal flaws: a lack of ambition and a lack of buy-in. The Kyoto Protocol was signed by 37 countries plus the European Union; the United States signed but later pulled out. The other signatories did meet their targets, which averaged a 5 per cent reduction in emissions levels below 1990 levels, to be achieved by 2012. (Australia was a signatory, and we continue to boast about having met our target. We're quieter about the fact that what we negotiated was an 8 per cent increase in emissions between 1990 and 2012.) The signatories did not, however, include China and India — and overall global emissions rose by 44 per cent in that period. So clearly, negotiating binding targets with penalties attached has not been a success. This was tried again at the 2009 COP 15 in Copenhagen and the process broke down altogether. Since then, the world has taken a different tack, which was formalised at the 2015 COP 21 as the Paris Agreement. The idea behind the Paris Agreement has been to get as much participation as possible, with each of the 193 parties to the agreement publishing its own 'nationally determined contribution' (NDC), with a self-imposed emissions reduction target, an accompanying action plan, and a reporting schedule, carrying a commitment to update the NDC every five years, but no liability for non-compliance penalties. The aim, in other words, is to start from a baseline of widespread participation, secure initial commitments that can be politically delivered, and then ratchet up the level of ambition gradually through a timetable of regular reporting and target-resetting. In the period leading up to 2015, there was another significant development in climate science and policy. Starting in 2014, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — the UN body with the task of summarising climate science to inform policy — shifted away from talking simply about emissions reductions and began saying instead that net emissions must be reduced to zero in order to stabilise global temperatures. National net zero targets have consequently become a prominent part of the NDCs made under the Paris Agreement: more than 100 countries now have them. Generally, the target date is 2050 (though China's is 2060 and India's 2070). At the same time, net zero targets have been adopted by 20 per cent of the world's cities with more than 500,000 inhabitants, and over half of the world's 2,000 largest companies. How much credence should we give to critics? Against this historical background, let's return to the critics. The left-wing critics smell a rat when they see how enthusiastically the talk of net zero has been taken up by government and big business. In their minds the IPCC, having realised that our current emissions trajectories give us no hope of containing emissions to tolerable levels, has fallen back on the idea that somehow we can address climate change by investing in 'negative emissions technologies' for removing greenhouse gas from the atmosphere. The big emitters have eagerly seized on this as a way of creating the illusion of action. And one has to admit, when you find Clive Palmer's Waratah Coal proposing a new 'carbon-neutral' coal-fired power station, alarm bells ring. On the other hand, the right-wing critics — which include, of course, Clive Palmer — complain that we are being played for mugs by China, and that pursuing net zero will simply rip jobs out of the regions, blight the landscape with wind turbines and drive up power prices, for the sake of making urban teal voters feel good. Similar voices are currently being raised across the world, as Greg Sheridan approvingly notes. Are these criticisms themselves realistic? Climate change is a global problem; it requires a global solution; and currently there is one available vehicle for working towards it: the UNFCC process, with its national targets. We might prefer that the process or the problem itself were different, but it's not. Given the chequered history of international climate action, we're entitled to reserve judgement about whether this will work. But given the scale and complexity of the problem we are faced with, there's something risible in the idea that Australia should walk away now, concluding that the global attempt to solve it has failed. It's especially ridiculous in a country that dragged itself reluctantly to a net zero commitment as late as 2021 then to turn around four years later when faced with the discipline of setting an interim target, declare this to be too hard and to be the fault of the country that burns our exported coal, and to walk away while complaining that other countries are not acting in good faith. All countries now face three options regarding national net zero targets: rejection — abandon the targets altogether; — abandon the targets altogether; lip service — declare a net zero target for the sake of international decorum, but take no serious action to implement it; — declare a net zero target for the sake of international decorum, but take no serious action to implement it; provisional commitment — set the target, make a plan for implementing it, but give yourself the option of bailing out if there's a danger of being suckered by your international partner-competitors. Currently, Australia has worked its faltering way to provisional commitment, with its target of reducing net emissions by 43 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. From here, we could still fall back on lip service if necessary, to avoid being done over by ruthless competitors. But it's hard to see how it could really be in the national interest to go all the way to rejection. It is true that lip service, unlike rejection, would carry the inconvenience of encouraging your electorate to demand that you actually take action to meet your target. So it would require some degree of political skill, of a rather unattractive kind, to execute. But there are no evident ways in which the national interest would be better served by rejection than by lip service, which retains freedom of manoeuvre and makes you less of a pariah. Moreover, without being too naïve, there are some grounds for thinking that international climate action could ultimately succeed. We did control the damage that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were doing to the ozone layer. And the increasingly obvious badness of what lies in store if we don't solve the climate problem actually supplies some reasons for believing we will eventually do so. Most people aren't as selfish as a pure Hobbesian model of human motivation would have it. People everywhere tend to care about the future of their children, grandchildren and communities. No nation — China or any other — is populated by people who will be happy to consign their descendants to a climate apocalypse. If that's true, then there are three powerful reasons for staying engaged in the current UNFCC process, and adopting a strategy of provisional commitment to a net zero target: it can help create momentum towards actually solving the problem; it can help create momentum towards actually solving the problem; it creates goodwill in international alliances, which are useful outside the context of climate discussions as well as within them; it creates goodwill in international alliances, which are useful outside the context of climate discussions as well as within them; and if the world community does go in the direction of a green economic transition — and there are some signs that it will — it's smarter for us to do so earlier rather than later. Why climate change is a political problem Once you've noticed the structure of collective action problems, you tend to spot them all over the place — they really are part of the human condition. One place you find them is in Coalition party rooms. There, the battle being fought is over which of the first two options to retreat to: lip service or rejection. As we've seen for decades, there are Coalition politicians whose power bases give them incentives to advance their own individual political interests in ways that are worse for the Coalition as a whole, because they tend to pull it apart. We should be used to this by now, and there's little point in lamenting it. After all, this is going to be part of our political landscape for the foreseeable future. In a democracy, there will always be a place for climate contrarianism, for as long as there is such a thing as climate policy. We also need political leaders who are tested in the proving-ground of intra-party politics to develop political skills of a high order. The hardest part of the global climate problem is not technical or economic: engineers have produced low-emissions technologies, and economists have plenty of advice on how to create incentives for us to use them. The hardest part of the problem is political . It requires somehow pulling 200 countries in the same direction, while they are antagonists over other issues. Succeeding in doing this will require political virtuosity and statecraft of the highest order. Those are skills that don't come around very often. However, at least there's this crumb of consolation. When the great politicians we need do arrive, the problem will still be there for them to solve. Garrett Cullity is Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Centre for Moral, Social and Political Theory at the Australian National University. Christian Barry is Director of the Research School of Social Sciences at the Australian National University.
ABC News
01-08-2025
- ABC News
Fiji's High Court finds nine men guilty in country's biggest drug bust
On the program this week: Fiji's High Court has found nine men guilty of various charges stemming from the country's biggest drug bust. Pacific countries spring into tsunami action plans following the massive eight point eight magnitude earthquake in Russia Tuvalu's Prime Minister visits Canberra following the first Tuvaluans being selected to migrate to Australia under the Falepili Migration Pathway Concerns around the skyrocketing rates of sexually transmitted diseases among PALM scheme workers Vanuatu marks 45 years of and celebrates the landmark advisory opinion passed down by the International Court of Justice.
Sydney Morning Herald
30-07-2025
- Sydney Morning Herald
What's in a number? New carbon target sparks new climate warfare
Our free Environment newsletter is sent every second Wednesday. Below is an excerpt. Sign up to get the whole newsletter delivered to your inbox. Casual observers of federal parliament might this week have been startled by a sudden resumption of conflict over climate, but the timing was no accident. Australia, like the rest of the world, is due to set its 2035 carbon-emission reduction target under the Paris Agreement. As a result, Canberra is crawling with those who have an interest in influencing that target (or Nationally Determined Contribution, more on which shortly). Setting the scene for many turning their attention to parliament as it resumed for the Albanese government's second term, were Nationals MPs Barnaby Joyce and Michael McCormack, who introduced a private members' bill to have Australia abandon entirely the effort to cut emissions in line with the Paris Agreement. Also in Canberra this week was Simon Stiell, the UN's chief climate diplomat or, more properly, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. He has been travelling the world urging nations to submit ambitious targets that will keep Paris Agreement goals within reach. Far too careful a diplomat to recommend an Australian target, he has been making the case that, on economic and security grounds, Australia should be ambitious. 'Bog standard is beneath you … Go for what will build lasting wealth and national security,' he said in a speech in Sydney before travelling to Canberra. 'Go for what will change the game and stand the test of time.' So, what's a Nationally Determined Contribution? When world governments signed the Paris Accord almost a decade ago they agreed that to halt climate change before catastrophic tipping points kicked in, warming needed to be arrested below 2 degrees and as close as possible to 1.5 degrees.
