At least seven times more being spent to damage climate and nature than protect it
The budget contains at least seven times more spending on initiatives that damage nature and the climate than it allocates to climate and nature protection.
Modelling used by the Business Council of Australia to claim a strong 2035 target would cost billions lacks credibility, the Australian Conservation Foundation said today.
The modelling by McKinsey for the BCA:
“While there’s a lot we don’t know about what the world will be like in 2035, we know the damage from climate change will continue to accelerate,” said ACF’s climate change program manager Gavan McFadzean.
“This Frontier Economics-style modelling completely ignores the massive costs of letting climate change rip: increasingly pricey rescue and clean up from extreme weather events, not to mention impacts on multiple industries including agriculture, fishing, insurance and tourism.
“Is scaremongering over climate action really what the BCA’s membership wants the peak body to lobby for?
“A return to climate policy paralysis will undermine investor confidence in Australia’s energy, manufacturing and industrial base.
“To give Australians and our environment the best chance of holding global warming at the safest levels now possible, Australia should set a 2035 target of no less than 80%.”