Fifteen years ago, on this day, April 20th, 2009, the Australian Chief Scientist tried to inject some urgency into the policy debate…,
The Government’s chief scientist wants the country to set the toughest possible targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, warning that action must begin now against climate change.
The Government has committed to cutting Australia’s emissions by 5 to 15 percent of 2000 levels by 2020 and wants to start an emissions trading scheme next year.
However, the target has been slammed by the Greens and environmental groups as being too low and the Opposition has also recently signalled it would support a stronger cut in emissions.
Professor Penny Sackett would not put an exact figure on what she thought the target should be but she said she has advised the Government to set the steepest target possible.
Anon. 2009. World has 6 years to act on climate change. ABC,, April 20
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 387.6ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the Rudd Government had been selling out the future by allowing lobbyists for the oil and gas and coal industries to chip away and chip away at the already initially piss-weak ambition of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. It was about to be introduced to Parliament, and presumably Penny Sackett, Chief Scientific Adviser was trying to stiffen everyone’s resolve so that further compromises would be minimal. Well, ideally, ambition will be ramped up, but no, it’s a ratchet.
What we learn is that scientists are largely powerless in these matters and all they can do is speak truth to power and power will ignore them and so it came to pass.
What happened next? Rudd’s Piss-weak and ever pisser weaker legislation was defeated because of Tony Abbott. And because the Greens decided something bad would come along, Rudd was toppled the following year. And Sackett resigned in April 2011 without giving a reason, but this has shed some light on why she might have done that.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
Also on this day:
April 20, 2006 – David Cameron does “hug-a-husky” to detoxify the Conservative “brand”
April 20, 1998 – National Academy of Sciences vs “Oregon petition” fraud