Massive hole in modelling - Labor’s low ambition target excludes costs of more fires, floods and heatwaves
Massive hole in modelling - Labor’s low ambition target excludes costs of more fires, floods and heatwaves | Australian Greens Skip to main content Search Get Involved Join Donate Our plan Tax the 1% Tackle the cost of living Healthcare for all Fix the housing crisis Strong climate action Policy principles & aims Our team Federal MPs State/territory MPs Officeholders Media releases Take action Volunteer Donate Issues & campaigns Events Greens Shop Leave a bequest Our movement About the Greens Become a member Jobs Green Magazine All news Get Involved Join Donate Search Our plan Toggle Tax the 1% Tackle the cost of living Healthcare for all Fix the housing crisis Strong climate action Policy principles & aims Our team Toggle Federal MPs State/territory MPs Officeholders Media releases Take action Toggle Volunteer Donate Issues & campaigns Events Greens Shop Leave a bequest Our movement Toggle About the Greens Become a member Jobs Green Magazine All news Massive hole in modelling - Labor’s low ambition target excludes costs of more fires, floods and heatwaves 2025-09-19 Massive hole in modelling - Labor’s low ambition target excludes costs of more fires, floods and heatwaves While Minister Bowen has said today that a target over 70 percent carries ‘unacceptable environmental, social and economic costs for our country’, the very modelling he is relying on to inform his targets does not factor in the costs of climate impacts from the Government's own National Climate Risk Assessment.
That Risk Assessment found the following was likely at just 2C of warming: 1.5 million Australians at risk of sea level rise making their homes and communities unliveable¹ Rolling disastrous weather events Heat deaths surging by over 200% in cities like Sydney and Darwin² Hospitals pushed to the brink Hundreds of billions wiped from the property market over the next 25 years³ Higher insurance bills, failing crops and higher grocery prices Mass extinction ¹Climate Risk Assessment Overview page 22 ²Climate Risk Assessment Overview page 35 - figure 4 ³Climate Risk Assessment Overview page 31 On pg. 14 of the CSIRO modelling, commissioned by the CCA, that the Government is relying on to dismiss further ambition lies a critical caveat: “However, it should be noted that this analysis does not account for the benefits of avoided climate change impacts in either scenario.” It is unclear how the Government can stand by this modelling which fails to include the costs of 1.5, 2 or even more degrees of warming.
The modelling can be found online here: Modelling Sectoral Technology and Emissions Pathways to 2035 and Net Zero Emissions - Final Report PDF (11 MB) Attributable to Greens Leader Senator Larissa Waters: “The more we look at the modelling behind this utter failure of a climate target, the more it shows it was crafted to appease the coal and gas industry. “The government’s modelling fails to ask the question: what will be the cost of 1.5 million people losing their homes to sea level rises?
What will be the cost of hospitals unable to see patients due to cascading catastrophic weather events? What will be the cost of crop failures on the price and availability of food? “How can the government wave around modelling that doesn’t address the cost of climate breakdown, when their own advice says this is what’s coming?
“The climate target is an utter failure which doesn’t account for the cost of climate change because it was written to appease the coal and gas industry. “What a farce - the minister’s laughable claim this morning that a target over 70% would carry ‘unacceptable environmental, social and economic costs’ is because his model deliberately ignored the cost of climate damage.
“Labor is using selective modelling to justify their pre-determined low climate target all because they want to keep their coal and gas donors happy. “Labor’s cynical attempt to mislead the public on the ambition of their climate targets takes the public for fools. “Low ambition to appease the coal and gas corporations means ignoring the costs of more fires, more floods, more heatwaves and more extinctions.
“A truly ambitious target would be based on science and based on the avoided cost of disasters - and would entail ending coal and gas exports that are putting us all at risk. “Labor are too captured by the political donations from coal and gas corporations that they have prioritised polluters’ profits ahead of a safe climate future for everyday Australians and nature.” “We have existing, affordable technologies that ClimateWorks says could deliver over 85% emissions reduction and, with the Greens, Labor has the numbers in parliament to be truly ambitious on climate.” Facebook for the Australian Greens YouTube for the Australian Greens X for the Australian Greens Instagram for the Australian Greens Bluesky for the Australian Greens Privacy Members website Your safety Contact us Our plan Tax the 1% Tackle the cost of living Healthcare for all Fix the housing crisis Strong climate action In your language 2025 policy platform Policy principles & aims Our team Federal MPs State/territory MPs Officeholders Federal portfolios Federal media releases Take action Volunteer Donate Issues & campaigns Upcoming events Greens Shop Leave a bequest Green Magazine All news Our movement About the Greens Become a member Jobs Members website State/territory parties Contact us The Greens acknowledge the Traditional Owners of country throughout Australia and recognise their continuing connection to land, waters and culture.
We acknowledge that these lands were stolen and sovereignty was never ceded. We pay our respects to Elders past and present. The Australian Greens Authorised by Gemmia Burden & Caroline Atkinson, The Greens, 1 Anthony Rolfe Avenue, Gungahlin, 2912 Site & copyright information Privacy Your Safety View this site in High Contrast mode We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience.
Find out more about how we use cookies and how you can avoid trackers online. Learn more No, thanks OK