Key findings:There is currently no legal basis for the ‘carryover’ of pre-2021 units from the Kyoto Protocol for use under the Paris Agreement. The Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement are separate treaties.
- Even within its own legal framework, the Kyoto Protocol does not permit the carryover of units or underlying reductions beyond the 2013-2020 second commitment period.
- So called ‘overachievement’ can also be said to come directly from Australia’s decisions to allow itself an increase of 8% in its emissions in the first Kyoto commitment period compared to 1990 levels and a minimal 0.5% reduction for the second period. Having chosen far less ambitious targets than other countries Australia is now claiming to have ‘overachieved.’
- Were Australia to succeed in using carryover credits in the way it has proposed it would reduce Australia’s 2030 target from 26% to only a 14.3% reduction below 2005 emissions levels using 2018 projections (the cut is even greater under 2019 projections).
“The Paris Agreement is a new and separate treaty, to start afresh to take ambitious climate action going forward and there seems to be no legal grounds to import questionable credits from past treaties” said His Excellency Anote Tong, former President of Kiribati.
“If Australia has overachieved, then it means it has the capacity to do more, not less.
“Australia is on fire due in large part to climate change and it is beyond me why the Australian Government is looking for ways to weaken the Paris Agreement so it and others can do less to solve the climate crisis.
“If Australia really believes it is a member of the Pacific family, and cares about its own people, then it should stand in solidarity to ensure the integrity of the Paris Agreement.
“This is about the real impact of what we are all trying to achieve here. Are we trying to work together or are we just shifting numbers?
“We are not even on track to limit global warming to 1.5, and it is not right that some countries are looking to do less. It is important that Australia shows leadership in the most challenged region in the world.”
“Australia’s emissions from electricity, transport and industrial production are still rising but Australia is claiming it will meet its Paris commitment to reduce emissions by 26-28 per cent by relying on a range of complicated accounting tricks” said Richie Merzian, climate & energy director at the Australia Institute.
“Australia has always demanded an easy ride at international climate talks. Back at Kyoto in 1997 Australia demanded what became known as ‘the Australia clause’ which redefined land clearing in a way that made Australia’s emissions targets very easy to meet. And then of course back in Kyoto when other countries were committing to reduce emissions we set our target as an increase in emissions of 8 per cent. But our latest demands are our most outrageous.
“Having distorted the rules in the past, and having previously demanded some of the least ambitious targets in the developed world, the Australian Government is now arguing that because we ‘overperformed’ against past benchmarks we should gain some ‘credit’ for this in the future.
“This research makes clear that there is no scientific, moral or legal foundation for the Australian Government’s determination to gain credit for its historic recalcitrance.
“Australia’s determination to build new coal mines and ignore the link between enormous bushfires and climate change has already diminished its credibility at these talks, but demanding the right to use the land clearing practices of the 1990s as a substitute for burning less coal today is a bridge to far for the vast majority of the countries gathered in good conscience at this COP.”
“It is a serious concern that the Australian Government continues to employ dodgy accounting in order to evade action and actually reduce its emissions,” said Dr Bill Hare, report co-author and head of Climate Analytics.
“There is nothing to be proud of claiming credits for action that never happened under the Kyoto Protocol so that Australia can bludge off the efforts of others, nor, as the report shows, undermining the Paris Agreement by demanding legal recognition for emission units that do not belong to it.”