At a time when governments are struggling to adopt climate legislation, the Chief Scientist for Australia, Professor Penny D Sackett, said continued delays in reducing carbon emissions could ultimately contribute to the dangerous impacts of global warming.
Delayed action increases risk of dangerous climate change
Reluctance of nations around the world to implement mechanisms that recognise the cost of greenhouse gas emissions will increase the effort required to manage and adapt to the impacts of climate change, according to the country’s top independent science advisor.
“Delays in the reduction of emissions mean that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will continue to increase and continue to compound the greenhouse effect,” Professor Sackett said.
“If no action is taken, this will eventually lead us to dangerous climate change.”
Professor Sackett warned that additional delay meant more stringent emission reduction would be required in future if Australia still planned to meet its portion of the worldwide carbon budget aimed at limiting temperature increases to 2 degrees. A 2 degree change is considered to be the guardrail value that if surpassed, would result in dangerous conditions.
“It is clear that now is the time for action on climate change, and yet we are not acting with sufficient speed to reduce the large degree of risk that climate change poses to our health, our environment and our livelihoods,” she said.
According to the Chief Scientist, not all required action will be taken through national government policy, but nations should show leadership to safeguard a sustainable and economic future for their citizens.
“Combating climate change is not just a matter of policy and government, it’s an issue that affects our society at every level, right down to the individual, and requires systematic change at all levels and in all sectors, not just at policy level,” Professor Sackett said.
“In the face of slow changes at national levels, it is all the more important that forwarding-looking industries, states, individual cities and towns, community groups and family groups continue to network together to reduce their carbon footprints and assess the impact of climate change on their activities”, she said.
“We all recognise that this is a global problem that is not just confined to Australia, but we have an opportunity to do more than our fair share and be international leaders in tackling climate change at national, sectoral, community and individual levels. We must not let that opportunity to make a positive difference pass.”
For more information on Australia’s Chief Scientist, visit http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/
Click here to download media release
Media Contact: Alexis Cooper, Office of the Chief Scientist, Mobile: 0410 029 407
Comments
2 Responses to “Delayed action increases risk of dangerous climate change”
Related articles
- Approaching 2010: Climate change, where do we stand?
- Using technology to trump climate change
- Climate Change: Science and Solutions for Australia
Tags
advice Agriculture Aircraft Maintenance altitude analyse animal annual review ANSTO Antarctic antarctica ANU asteroid Astronomy astrophysics athlete ATLAS aurora Aurora Australis Aurora Borealis Australia Australian Institute of Sport Australian Mathematical Sciences Institute Award bacteria Biodiversity biosecurity biotechnology Birthday Problem blood book brain function brian schmidt brisbane buildings Canada Carbon Carbon dioxide careers Centre for Functional Plant Genomics challenge Cheese Chemistry Chief Scientist children Chris Gore city Climate Climate Change Collaboration communication competition Constellation CSIRO culture Curds and Whey data data prediction DIISR Diplomacy disease DNA Dr Frederique Olivier education Efficiency energy engineer Engineering environment Epidemics Extinction farm farming Fellowships Fires fish food Food Production food security Forests Frank Fenner funding galaxy genetically modified food Genetic Information genetics geoscience australia German Science Circle Germany Global Challenges Global Warming glucose GMO google grants grassland green Hayabusa health heart rate Home horse Hubble Ian Chubb Ice impact statement Inaugural Innovation inspiring australia insulin international Interview Jelly Beans Kids L'Oreal lactate land Learning legislation malaria marine biology Marine Science mathematics maths medical research metrology microscope model Monash University nanoskin Nanotechnology National Measurement Institute neuroscience newton NHMRC Nobel Prize northern lights ocean ocean acidification Olympics Overfishing pests phosphorus physics Planets plankton PMSEIC policy Pollution Power Prime Minister Prime Minister's Prizes for Science prime minister's science engineering and innovation council Prize Professor Chubb prosthetic limb protein publications public policy quarantine queensland Questacon report running Sarah White school science Science Activity science diplomacy science fair science of learning science policy science week scientists SKA smallpox Snails Software soil solar power southern lights speech Speeches sport Star Power Stars and Space statistics stem cell student students surgery sustainability Sustainable Reef Switzerland taxonomy teacher Technology TechNyou telescope treatment USA video water Women Women in Science workforce wsahingtonScience in the news
- Probing the cosmos for signs of life
- Whales spread songs across the Pacific
- Scientists teleport Schrödinger's cat
- First galaxies born much earlier than expected
- Ice melt a weighty problem: expert
Comments:
Australia is not going to progress on emissions reduction until leaders like the Chief Scientist move on from worrying about the issue to progressing solutions. Our 20% by 2020 target would be met if we were to have two 4000 MW nuclear power stations built and commissioned, quite possible in the time frame. However we are in a time warp as to the use of nuclear energy, when so many other countries and regions use it. Why not become an advocate for having our future low emissions sources (currently termed “renewables”) redefined to include nuclear energy with wind solar and geothermal energy? Nuclear electricity could be mandated within existing government and electricity market processes and the ETRS with all its complexities and distortions would be unnecessary. Later a simple carbon tax would heal with the next phase of change.