Australian Medical Students' Association's submission to Australia's post-2020 targets review

 
Australian Medical Students' Association's submission to Australia's post-2020 targets review
Australian Medical Students’ Association’s
submission to Australia’s post-2020 targets
review
The Australian Medical Students’ Association would like to draw the attention of the
UNFCCC Taskforce to the immense importance for the health of Australians of an
ambitious commitment from Australia to an effective and equitable global response
to climate change, and to the substantial health benefits of an emissions reduction
target consistent with avoiding 2 degrees Celsius of global warming.

   1.    A national emissions budget for 2013–2050 of 10,100 Mt CO2-e
   2.   An early target of at least 40% reduction in emission on 2000 levels by 2025.
   3.   An intermediate target of at least 60% reduction in emissions on 2000 levels
        by 2030.
   4.    A long term post-2020 target of at least 95% reduction in emissions on
        2000 levels by 2050.
   5. Complete transparency from the government with regard to the methods and
        models used to determine its carbon budget and emissions reduction
        targets.
   6. Consideration of the overwhelmingly negative impacts on health of weak
        emissions reduction targets
   7. Recognition of the significant potential for health co-benefits with strong
        climate mitigation. Subsequent savings in the health sector may reduce the
        cost for the Australian government to commit to our aforementioned
        recommended emissions reduction targets.
   8. Adoption of a range of policy tools including carbon pricing which will
        efficiently reduce emissions and protect health and wellbeing

Introduction

The Australian Medical Students’ Association (AMSA) is the peak representative
body for Australia’s 17,000 medical students. AMSA’s key mandate is to connect,
inform and represent students studying at each of the 20 medical schools in
Australia. Furthermore, AMSA believes that all communities have the right to the
best attainable health, and accordingly seeks to advocate on issues that may impact
health outcomes.

AMSA acknowledges that climate change is a serious threat to human health of the
present century and threatens the health of communities both in Australia and
globally. Accordingly, AMSA actively seeks to advocate on issues that may impact
on health outcomes by affecting mitigation of climate change.
Medical students around the country feel strongly that Australia’s post-2020
emissions reduction target must be set in consideration of the health impacts of
climate change, and their associated economic burden, in addition to the health co-
benefits of certain mitigation policies, and their associated economic gains.

What should Australia’s post-2020 target be and how should it be expressed?

Australia should commit to the following post-2020 targets:

    1.    A national emissions budget for 2013–2050 of 10,100 Mt CO2-e
    2.   An early target of at least 40% reduction in emission on 2000 levels by 2025.
    3.   An intermediate target of at least 60% reduction in emissions on 2000 levels
         by 2030.
    4.    A long-term post-2020 target of at least 95% reduction in emissions on 2000
         levels by 2050.

These targets should cover all sectors of the economy and all greenhouse gases not
controlled by the Montreal Protocol, namely:
    ●    Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
    ●    Methane (CH4)
    ●    Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
    ●    Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
    ●    Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
    ●    Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6)
    ●    Nitrogen trifluoride (NF3)

As outlined below, these targets are consistent with the requirement to avoid
dangerous climate change in the context of Australia's national circumstances, and
the efforts of key trading partners and major economies.

         Avoiding dangerous climate change

As mention on page 6 of the issues paper, Australia's emissions reduction target
must fairly contribute 'to achieving the UNFCCC’s objective of stabilising emissions
at a level that would avoid dangerous climate change.' This objective of the UNFCCC
is stated in Article 2 of the Convention as follows:

         "The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related legal instruments that the
Conference of the Parties may adopt is to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions
of the Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a
level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.
Such a level should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt
naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable
economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner." (1)
Given the definitions provided in Article 1 of the convention, the phrase 'dangerous
anthropogenic interference with the climate system' is equivalent to the phrase
'dangerous climate change'.

Subsequent agreements under the UNFCCC have defined what constitutes
'dangerous climate change', and therefore to what objective Australia's target must
aim. Paragraph 1 of the Copenhagen Accord of 2009 states the following:

        "To achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention to stabilize greenhouse gas
concentration in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic
interference with the climate system, we shall, recognizing the scientific view that the
increase in global temperature should be below 2 degrees Celsius, on the basis of equity and
in the context of sustainable development, enhance our long-term cooperative action to
combat climate change" (2)

Paragraph 2 of the Copenhagen Accord further emphasises the following:

        "We agree that deep cuts in global emissions are required according to science, and
as documented by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report with a view to reduce global
emissions so as to hold the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius, and take
action to meet this objective consistent with science and on the basis of equity". (2)

Moreover, paragraph 4 of the 2010 Cancun Agreement states:

        "that deep cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions are required according to
science, and as documented in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, with a view to reducing global greenhouse gas emissions so as to
hold the increase in global average temperature below 2 °C above preindustrial levels, and
that Parties should take urgent action to meet this long-term goal, consistent with science
and on the basis of equity; also recognizes the need to consider, in the context of the first
review, as referred to in paragraph 138 below, strengthening the long-term global goal on the
basis of the best available scientific knowledge, including in relation to a global average
temperature rise of 1.5 °C" (3)

As such, Australia's post-2020 target must be defined in reference to holding the
increase in global average temperature rise at least below 2 °C above preindustrial
levels, in accordance with scientific requirements. Considerations of economic
growth, population growth, job security, and business competitiveness are
secondary considerations to the overall objective. Although these questions should
be kept in mind in the development of policy instruments, they should not
overshadow the overall objective of Article 2 of the convention, which should be
based on sound scientific evidence, rather than political agendas or particular
business interests.

The Climate Change Authority has modelled what constitutes Australia's fair share
of global emissions reductions in its 2014 Targets and Progress Review. This review
highlights that keeping within a global emissions budget of 1,700 Gt CO2 -e between
2000 and 2050 is necessary to have a likely (two-thirds) chance of avoiding
temperature rise above the 2°C limit. The Authority calculates that Australia's fair
share of this budget is 10,100 Mt CO2-e for the 2013–2050 period, based on a
modified contraction and convergence approach. (4)

Given this national carbon budget, the Authority recommends a post-2020 emission
reduction target range of 40-60% below 2000 levels by 2030. (4) AMSA recommends
the 2030 target should be a 60% reduction in emissions on 2000 levels. According to
the Climate Institute, the 40% lower limit of the Authority's recommendation is more
consistent with seeking to avoid a 3°C temperature rise, hence Australia should
adopt a 60% reduction below 2000 levels by 2030 in order to be consistent with
avoiding a 2°C global temperature rise. The reasons for suggesting a 2025 and 2050
target are outlined below.

AMSA recommends that Australia's post-2020 target must be defined in reference to the
 scientific recommendation and international agreement to hold global temperature rise
at least below 2°C above preindustrial levels in order to avoid dangerous climate change,
     and further recommends the aforementioned targets in-line with this 2°C limit.

       Australia's National Circumstances

The issue paper raises a number of concerns regarding potential limitations on the
strength of Australia's target. These issues related to Australia's higher than average
economic growth; population growth; dependence on fossil fuels; and economic
dependence on natural resource extraction.

In highlighting the strength of Australia's effort to address climate change, the
issues paper also states that: 'Between 1990 and 2014 the economy nearly doubled
in size and our population grew strongly, while greenhouse gas emissions remained
broadly the same. Australia’s emissions per capita have reduced by 28 per cent
since 1990 and by 20 per cent since 2000 and emissions per unit of gross domestic
product have fallen by 52 per cent since 1990 and by 35 per cent since 2000.'
This establishes that Australia already has the capacity to decouple population
growth, economic growth and greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed, a number of
groups have already modelled economic growth with different emissions reduction
levels. Table 1. showing these models has been adapted from the Climate Institute's
post-2020 Emissions Challenge Report. The central conclusion of all of these
analyses is that significant emissions reductions by Australia can be achieved with
ongoing economic growth.
Table 1. Studies of projected economic growth with emissions reduction targets. (adapted
from Climate Institute report "Australia's Post-2020 Emission Reduction Challenge") (5)

Studies                              Indexed % change in GDP (on        Indexed % change in
                                     2010 levels)                       emissions (on 2010 levels)

                                     2025             2050              2025              2050

ABARE 2006                           46               122               10                -50

Allens Consulting 2006               48               132               -20               -63

The Climate Institute 2007           59 to 62         186 to 192        -9 to -18         -46 to -100

Treasury 2008                        48 to 53         137 to 147        -9 to -19         -57 to -73

Treasury 2011                        57 to 58         170 to 171        -21 to -37        -81

Climate Change Authority             62 to 64         N/A               -18 to -35        -80

ClimateWorks, ANU, CSIRO             53               154               -32               -100
2014

A drawback of these economic models is that none of them include economic
benefits of reduced greenhouse gas emissions in their assessment. Assessments
by the United States government and the International Monetary Fund indicate that
substantial emission reductions would deliver multi-trillion dollar health,
environmental and economic benefits over the long term (conservatively NPV $1-3.5
trillion). (6) Additionally, these assessments do not account for some climate
damages that are difficult to quantify, yet are vital to Australia's prosperity. For
example, they exclude damage from: increased severity of bushfire weather;
agricultural losses through drought and extreme weather events; the loss of the
Great Barrier Reef; and the regional or global disruption of traded commodities.
Focusing narrowly on the costs of reducing emissions biases these analyses
towards weaker mitigation. For example, based on a 'high end scenario' of 1.1 m sea
level rise in the IPCC fourth assessment report, the Climate Council estimates that
more than $226 billion in commercial, industrial, road and rail, and residential assets
are at risk from flooding. These estimates should be included as benefits of strong
mitigation in the government's assessment. In order to develop a representative
target, the government should utilise a robust costs and benefits analysis of
different emissions reduction targets, paying particular attention to economic,
social, environmental and health costs AND benefits. The health costs and benefits
of strong and weak mitigation actions for Australia are discussed later in this
submission.

Just as focussing on costs and neglecting benefits biases the economic evaluation,
focussing on barriers and neglecting opportunities biases the solutions assessment.
The issues paper suggests that 'Australia’s abundant energy and mineral resources
and limited scope to harness hydroelectricity' are key barriers to strong mitigation.
However, Australia has tremendous opportunity to harness other renewable energy
sources in order to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and limit warming to below
2°C. There is an overwhelming abundance of literature underscoring Australia's
potential to harness renewable energy, including solar, wind, geothermal, wave/tide,
biomass and fuel cells. (7, 8)

Indeed a recent report by the WWF and Australian National University found that
Australia has among the best settings in the world to achieve 100% of energy
generation from renewable energy by 2050, and that it could achieve this without
incurring massive adjustment costs or depressing economic growth. (9)This can
only be achieved, however, if there are clear and stable national policy settings to
support investment in renewables. In reiterating Paragraph 2 of the 2009
Copenhagen Accord "we agree that deep cuts in global emissions are required [...] to
hold the increase in global temperature below 2°C". Available modelling suggests
that Australia has the renewable energy resources to achieve this without sacrificing
strong economic growth. As such, concerns about economic growth should not
interfere with target setting, and should instead be considered in the realm of policy
instruments.

The issues paper further cites that 'iron ore and concentrates, coal and natural gas
made up around 40 per cent of Australia’s exports at a value of around $124 billion'
and references the 2014 IEA World Energy Outlook, saying that 'by 2040, it is
estimated that 74 per cent will still be met by carbon-based sources'. The latter
projection is based on the "New Policies Scenario", which takes into account current
policies around the world. This same report stats that 'Policy choices and market
developments that bring the share of fossil fuels in primary energy demand down to
just under three-quarters in 2040 are not enough to stem the rise in energy-related
carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, which grow by one-fifth. This puts the world on a
path consistent with a long-term global average temperature increase of 3.6 °C.'
Thus the "New Policies Scenario" underscores the need for stronger action by all
countries, including Australia, to stay below the 2 °C limit, and should not be used to
excuse action. This urgent need for stronger targets from Australia is emphasised in
the report, which states "advances in technology and efficiency give some reasons
for optimism, but sustained political efforts will be essential to change energy trends
for the better." Thus, in-line the political effort needed, the Australian government
should not be developing targets based on the "New Policies Scenario", which
predicts a 3.6°C temperature rise, but rather on the "450 Scenario", which presents
an energy pathway consistent with the goal of limiting the global increase in
temperature to 2°C. Australia has already committed to this goal, and its targets
should reflect this. The report also acknowledges that 'while coal is abundant and its
supply secure, its future use is constrained by measures to tackle pollution and
reduce CO2 emissions.' Indeed, McGlade and Ekins estimate for the OECD Pacific
region, which includes Australia, Japan and South Korea, 37%, 53% and 93% of oil,
gas, and coal reserves respectively cannot be utilised for a 2°C scenario with carbon
capture and storage (CCS) usage. Without CCS these figures change to 46%, 51%
and 95% for oil, gas, and coal respectively. (10) Thus Australia's fossil fuel reserves
are presently over-valued in a carbon-constrained world, and continued reliance on
coal and gas exports will leave Australia's assets stranded. Recent downturns in iron
ore prices from $120 per tonne in 2013 to around a third of that in recent weeks, has
reduced export and budget revenue forecasts. (11)

Given movements around the world to reduce carbon emissions, and what the
intergenerational report calls 'the end of the construction phase of the mining boom',
the 40% of exports from iron ore, gas, and coal stated in the issues paper are unlikely
to be as significant in the future. While this presents a challenge for Australia, it also
presents a tremendous opportunity for Australia to look to new enterprises and to
build a sustainable economy that does not rely on fossil fuel exports.

 Our recommended carbon budget and emissions reduction targets are consistent with
    the need to keep global temperature rise below 2 degrees without depressing the
  Australian economy. Moreover, our 2025, 2030, and 2050 targets provide a balance
 between long-term objectives and short-term commitments. This represents a balance
  between the flexibility to respond to scientific and technical change, and longer-term
  boundaries that allow investment decisions to be made in expectation of reasonable
                                     policy stability.

       Australia's Fair Share

Defining Australia's "fair share" is a complicated task. Many argue that Australia
should not have strong emissions reduction targets, because it only produces 1.1%
of global emissions. (12)

However, this logic is flawed for a number of reasons. Firstly, while, Australia's
absolute emissions are 1.1%, Australia's population comprises only 0.3% of the
global population, making Australia the 12th largest CO2 emitter per capita. (12,13)
Thus, on an equity basis, Australia is already producing more than its fair share of
carbon emissions, and should do more than other nations to reduce its emissions.
Secondly, the issues paper acknowledges that 'commitments by all countries to
reduce or limit their greenhouse gas emissions are needed to make a genuine
impact globally.' There are 22 countries whose absolute emissions range from 0.5%
to 1.5% of global emissions, similar to Australia. The cumulative emissions of these
nations mount to about 21.5% of total global emissions, more than the total
emissions of Europe or Central Asia. Should all these nations adopt the line of
reasoning that absolute emissions should determine strength of mitigation, a large
amount of emissions reduction would go unaccounted for. This underscores the
need for a global response from all nations, including Australia, and for the need to
consider emissions per capita, on an equity basis, and not just absolute emissions.

The issues paper states that Australia will also consider the efforts of key trading
partners and major economies. According to DFAT, Australia's top 10 key trading
partners are: China, Japan, United States, Republic of Korea, Singapore, New
Zealand, United Kingdom, Thailand, Malaysia, and Germany. (14) According to the
International Monetary Fund, the world's top 10 economies are: United States,
China, Japan, Germany, United Kingdom, France, Brazil, India, Italy, and Russia, with
the European Union being the largest economy by region. (15) Thus, there are a large
host of nations to which Australia could compare its targets. Given the need to
consider emissions per capita, in addition to absolute emissions on an equity basis,
reasonable comparisons for Australia's emission reduction target could made
against with those key trading partners and major economies with similar GDP per
capita to Australia. (15) These countries include: United States, Germany, United
Kingdom. Table 2. shows the contributions of these nations to date. Given the
targets presented in Table 2, our recommended targets of 40%, 60%, and 95% on
2000 levels by 2025, 2030, and 2050 are similar to key trading partners and major
economies with comparable economies to Australia on a GDP per capita basis.

Table 2. Emissions reduction targets of major economies and key trading partners with
comparable economies per capita to Australia.

Nation                 Intermediate Post-2020 target.             Long term 2050 Target

United States          26-28% reduction on 2005 levels by         83% Reduction on 2005 levels
                       2025

Germany (EU)           40% reduction on 1990 levels by 2030       80-95% reductions on 1990
                                                                  levels

United Kingdom         40% reduction on 1990 levels by 2030       80-95% reductions on 1990
(EU)                                                              levels

   With these comparisons in mind, it is essential for Australia to commit to a carbon
 budget until 2050. This commitment, together with a 2050 target will give longer-term
  boundaries that allow investment decisions to be made in expectation of reasonable
policy stability. The Climate Change Authority has already calculated what constitutes a
feasible "fair share" for Australia in its recommendation of a carbon budget of 10,100 Mt
CO2-e for 2013-2050. (4) AMSA supports this budget, and recommend the government
 commit to this carbon budget and develop its post-2020 targets based on this budget.
We also request complete transparency from the government with regard the methods
   and models used to determine its carbon budget and emissions reduction targets.
What would be the impact of different targets for health in Australia?

       Climate Change and Health

Climate change is already harming the health and wellbeing of Australians, and
poses an even greater risk for our future. Pertinent examples of climate-related
health risks in Australia include: (16-19)

   ●   Increased deaths and injuries, particularly among children and the elderly,
       related to worsening heat waves and other extreme weather events.
   ●   Increased water scarcity and food insecurity from drought and floods.
   ●   Damage to hospitals and health infrastructure from extreme weather events.
   ●   Increased demand on health and emergency services during extreme
       weather events.
   ●   Spread of food, water, and mosquito-borne infectious diseases, due to rising
       temperatures, changing rainfall patterns and extreme weather events.
   ●   Mental health problems in people and communities affected physically and
       financially by the impacts of climate change.
   ●   Health consequences of population dislocation as regions become
       uninhabitable.
   ●   National security threats relating to political destabilisation in regions with
       food and water insecurity, and mass migration.

These overwhelmingly negative impacts on health will be felt disproportionately by
the most marginalised groups in Australia, including rural and indigenous
Australians, low-income individuals and families, and people with chronic
diseases.(20)

Hughes and McMichael emphasise that federal government spending on health has
increased over the last decade. (20) The recent Intergenerational Report also
highlights that government health expenditure per person is projected to double over
the next 40 years to a total of 5.5 per cent of GDP in 2055. (18) The report points out
that this will be driven by both demographic factors of population growth and
population aging, in addition to non-demographic factors including increased
prevalence of chronic diseases. (18) This report does not factor in the above
impacts of climate change on health, particularly the impacts on the elderly and
chronic disease patients, which will drive further economic burden for future
generations.

More frequent and intense heat waves from climate change will result in more heart
attacks, strokes, accidents, heat exhaustion and death. (20) At the national level,
reductions in cold related deaths are likely to be significantly outweighed by heat-
related deaths by mid-century. (19) For example, under the scenario of unmitigated
climate change, the balance of national annual temperature-related deaths was
estimated to increase from around 5,800 in 1990 to 6,400 in 2020, 7,900 in 2050 and
17,200 in 2100. (19) By comparison, with effective international climate change
mitigation, these estimated numbers of temperature-related deaths would increase
by considerably smaller amounts during this century (see figure 1,) Children, the
elderly, people with chronic diseases, farmers and other outdoor workers are
particularly vulnerable to the heat (20)The health impacts of heat waves will create
tremendous addition burden and cost to ambulance services, clinics and hospitals,
not to mention lost worker productivity.

Figure 1. Projected temperature-related deaths in Australia with and without action on
climate change (20)

December 2010 and January 2011 flooding in Queensland and tropical cyclones
Anthony and Yasi demonstrate the catastrophic effects that extreme weather events
can have on life, health and infrastructure. Data from Queensland Health shows the
flooding and cyclones caused the cancellation of 1,396 booked elective surgeries as
a result of both increased demand on hospitals and staff unavailability; more than
200 patients in areas affected by cyclones were transferred to Brisbane hospitals,
leading to a 73% increase in ‘long waits’ for elective surgery; 501 clinical staff
deployed by Queensland Health assisted 10,000 people affected by the floods and
cyclones between 28 December 2010 and 18 February 2011; over 17,000
tetanus/diphtheria vaccines were distributed to reduce the risk of disease; and
Queensland Health’s phone information service, “13 HEALTH”, answered 54,881
calls from flood-affected areas. (21)The flooding also caused costly damage to
existing health infrastructure. The Queensland and Federal governments provided
$18.1 million over two years to repair damage caused to health facilities. (22)
Victims of such extreme weather events are at risk of suffering from long-term poor
mental health. To support these communities after the floods and cyclones, $37.8
million was provided over 2011-13 to fund the Queensland Mental Health Natural
Disaster Recovery Plan. (22)
With the changing climate, projected increases in frequency, duration and intensity
of extreme weather events such as those described for Queensland are expected to
cause further injuries, disease and death; they will also cause social disruption and
cost billions of dollars in damage. It is estimated that the cost of natural disasters
will increase from around $6.3 billion in 2012 to $23 billion by 2050. (20) As
previously mentioned, a 'high end scenario' sea level rise of 1.1m is expected to
place $266 billion of coastal infrastructure at risk by the end of the century,
including 258 police, fire and ambulance stations as well as 75 hospitals and health
services. (16) This infrastructure is vital to protect the health and safety of the
Australian people.

The shifting profile of infectious diseases, including food-borne, water-borne and
mosquito-borne illnesses such as dengue fever and Ross River will increase demand
on healthcare systems in Australia. (17) Without effective action to reduce
emissions, mosquitoes bearing dengue fever may spread southwards, increasing the
population at risk from 430,000 to 5-8 million Australians by the end of the century.
(19) In contrast, with substantial emission reductions, fewer than 1 million people
will be at risk by 2100. (19) Ross River virus is currently confined to Queensland, yet
cost the Australian public up to $4.9 million in 2007 - a figure that can be expected
to rise as the virus moves south. (17,19) In addition to direct health costs, spread of
infectious diseases will also reduce workforce productivity, adding to the economic
burden, and reducing the international competitiveness of Australian businesses.
For example, Brambrick and colleagues estimate that by 2050 there will be between
205,000 and 335,000 new cases of bacterial gastroenteritis in Australia each year,
and up to 870,000 new cases by 2100. An additional 335,000 cases could result in
$92.3 million in health and surveillance costs and 1.6 million lost workdays. (19)

Despite these direct impacts, the greatest impacts will be indirect. A recent report by
the University of Melbourne shows that droughts and floods are expected to result
in crop failure and livestock loss, significantly impacting the quality and quantity of
agricultural production in Australia. (23)This will have significant impacts on the
livelihood, prosperity and the physical and mental health of rural Australians. (20)
Subsequent increases in food prices may result in nutritional problems, particularly
in low-income families and children. (20) The changing climate may render regions
of Australia unliveable, resulting in migration and associated mental health
problems. (20). Around the world, climate change has the potential to produce
millions of climate refugees, with some estimating as many as 200 million climate
refugees. (24) This presents a tremendous problem for regional political stability and
in international refugee management.

   The degree of additional health burdens, costs and loss in worker productivity will
   depend largely on the cumulative efforts of countries around the world to mitigate
  climate change. It will also depend on the degree to which the Australian government
develops costly domestic adaptive strategies. To this end, and in light of the "Health in All
 Policies" Helsinki statement of the 8th Global Conference on Health Promotion, AMSA
recommends for the Australian government to consider the overwhelmingly negative
  impacts on health of weak emissions reduction targets. (25) The financial burdens of
  these health impacts can be minimised if the Australian government commits to our
  aforementioned recommended emissions reduction targets, consistent with what is
                         required to limit warming to 2 degrees.

   Health Co-benefits

Beyond reduced costs, limiting warming to 2°C also has significant potential for
health co-benefits. The recent intergenerational report highlighted the tremendous
and accumulating burden of chronic disease on Australia's health budget. (18)
Fortunately, strategies to tackle climate change can have the added benefit of
improving health, and preventing chronic disease. Coal-fired power stations, motor-
vehicles, and intensive livestock agriculture are not only driving climate change by
releasing greenhouse gases, but also contribute to poor health through air-pollution,
inactive transport, and poor diets respectively. (26)

Air pollution can cause cancer, as well as kidney, respiratory, and cardiovascular
disease in children and adults. (26, 27) Long-term exposure to urban air pollution
accounts for 1.5% of all deaths in Australia and short-term exposure accounts for a
further 0.8%. (28) The Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and
Engineering estimates that the health costs of burning coal are equivalent to a
national health burden of around $2.6 billion per annum. (11) With the additional
consideration of the impacts associated with coal’s contribution to climate change,
a report has found that coal production in the Hunter Valley alone contributes a
global social cost of $16-66 billion per annum. (29) The annual health cost of
pollution from cars, trucks and other modes of fossil-fuelled transport in Australia is
estimated at around $2.7 billion. (30) Thus policies that reduce reliance on fossil fuel
combustion for energy and transport offer potentially large savings in the health
budget.

Many of the non-communicable diseases that cause a high burden of disease in
Australia are associated with a carbon intensive lifestyle. (31,32) Physical inactivity
and diets high in animal products can contribute to the development of diseases
such as obesity, diabetes, ischaemic heart disease, hypertension, stroke, dementia,
depression, breast cancer and bowel cancer, many of which are or can become
chronic diseases. (26) There are particularly strong causative associations between
the drivers of climate change and obesity, and policies for reducing the emissions in
food systems would likely improve diets. (33) In 2007-08, three in five adults and one
in four children were either overweight or obese. In 2008, health system costs, loss
of productivity and carer costs attributable to obesity in Australia amounted to $58.2
billion. (34, 35) The prevalence of obesity has grown, and data from the 2011-12
Australian Health Survey suggests 63% of Australian adults and 25% of children are
now overweight or obese – a trend with significant implications for health systems
costs. (34)

Improving the design of cities and towns to make it easier to get around on foot and
bike has the potential for substantial benefits to our health, economy and
greenhouse gas emissions. Physical inactivity causes over 13,000 deaths each year
in Australia, and increases the risk of heart disease, Type 2 diabetes, breast and
bowel cancer, depression and anxiety. (36) It is estimated that the UK National
Health Service (NHS) spends $US 5,000 per minute treating diseases that could be
prevented by regular physical activity. (20) Australian modelling estimates that a
10% reduction in physical inactivity would result in 6,000 fewer incident cases of
disease, 2,000 fewer deaths, and a significant decrease in disability in the
community, translating to 114,000 additional working days and a $96 million
reduction in health sector costs annually. (37)

Support for expansion of active transport infrastructure would confer significant
reductions in greenhouse gases and in costs to healthcare systems. Current cycling
levels are estimated to save the Australian health system $22.72 million annually.
(13) A New Zealand study found that a 5% increase in short bicycle trips (less than 7
km) could have annual net health savings of NZ $200 million. (14)

Regarding diet, reducing animal product consumption by 30 per cent would lead to a
15 per cent reduction in the burden of ischaemic heart disease. (38) Reductions in
red meat consumption in Australia from the (current) average of 100g to 50g per
person per day have been predicted to reduce annual emissions from livestock by
13.3 MtCO2-e (about 22 per cent) as well as cutting the incidence of colorectal
cancer by 11 per cent. (38) Thus changes to agriculture to discourage excessive
consumption of animal products can improve public health and reduce demands
and associated costs on the healthcare system. (39)

Many of the market-based mechanisms to address climate change have an added
benefit for improving human health. The International Monetary Fund calculated
that a price on CO2 emissions in Australia would result in savings of $11.5 per tonne
of CO2 due to domestic co-benefits alone, particularly health co-benefits from
reduced air pollution (leaving aside the global climate benefits). (15)

  The monetised health co-benefits of mitigation policies will likely offset a substantial
fraction of the mitigation costs (23), thereby reducing the financial risk of committing to
   ambitious emissions reduction targets. In addition, climate policies with health co-
 benefits have the potential to increase worker productivity by lowering the opportunity
 costs of reduced utilisation of human capital due to illness. (22) A healthy workforce is
  more productive and gives Australian business a competitive advantage. To this end,
 AMSA recommends that the government recognise the significant potential for health
co-benefits with strong climate mitigation. Subsequent savings in the health sector may
reduce the cost for the Australian government to commit to our aforementioned
                      recommended emissions reduction targets.

Which further policies complementary to the Australian Government’s direct action
approach should be considered to achieve Australia’s post-2020 target and why?

AMSA acknowledges that there is no single policy measure can completely prevent
dangerous climate change, and therefore recommends employing a range of
mitigation techniques in order to meaningfully reduce emissions.

       Investment in Renewable Energy

Reducing the carbon intensity of electricity generation is a cost efficient mitigation
strategy. Decarbonisation of electricity generation occurs markedly more rapidly
than in industry building and transport sectors, and is therefore an accessible and
realistic objective for policy. Expansion of Australia’s renewable energy
consumption is a powerful means of reducing the more severe health effects of
coal-fired power and other fossil fuel generated electricity, and meaningfully
contributing to mitigation of climate change whilst strengthening Australia’s
sustainable economic development trajectory.

Australia has abundant renewable energy resources, including the highest average
solar radiation per square metre compared with all other continents. Australia has a
very large and widely distributed renewable resource base, which includes wind,
solar, bioenergy, geothermal, wave and tide as well as hydro resources. (40)

Legislated in 2001, the Renewable Energy Target (RET) is a successful means of
increasing renewable energy development and use in Australia. This is evidenced in
the near doubling of our renewable energy capacity from 10,650MW in 2001 to
19,700MW in 2012. (4)

The achievements of the RET since its implementation in 2001 are clear indications
that any costs to the scheme are negligible in comparison with the economic
benefits generated. The scheme has already attracted $20 billion in investments,
created over 24,000 jobs and brought wholesale electricity prices $10 per megawatt
hour lower. (41)

Increasingly innovative and readily available technologies such as high voltage
transmission systems and the creation of synthetic liquid fuels are making it viable
for us to envisage the export of these renewable fuels. (42) Support for the
Renewable Energy industry attract investments both locally and internationally that
will secure jobs for Australians across a broad range of skill sets. These jobs will
provide employment in rural, regional and metropolitan areas.
Further, as the changing economic climates and international obligations drive a
restructuring of emissions-intensive industries, we can expect to see increasing
rates of mental illness particularly in low skilled and regional workforces who will
stand to lose income security. (43) Increased economic participation as a
consequence of the 18,400 new jobs created under the RET between now and 2020
will transform the lives of thousands of Australians as they are granted new avenues
of employment. (41)

It must be noted that the world is powering ahead with renewable energy generation.
In 2014, clean energy investment grew in China (32%), the US (8%), Japan (12%),
Germany (3%) and the UK (3%). (44) However due to policy uncertainty in 2014 clean
energy investment however fell 35% in Australia, with investment in large-scale
renewable energy falling by a staggering 88%. (44)

        Pricing Carbon Emissions

Placing a price on carbon emissions provides financial incentives for reduction of
GHG emissions across all sectors, by imposing a levy on each unit of undesirable
activity. (45) In September of 2014, 73 nations including China, South Africa and the
European Union formally indicated their support of pricing carbon emissions. (46) As
described by Garnaut, pricing of carbon may involve a fixed-price mechanism
whereby the market decides to what extent carbon emissions are reduced. A floating
price sees permits distributed among the market to the total value of a set level of
emissions - the prices are set by the market and may be traded amongst
businesses. (47) Tax policies specifically aimed at reducing GHG emissions are a
powerful means of weakening the link between GHG emissions and gross domestic
product. Collecting tax from those who contribute to Australia’s GHG emissions is
also an effective mechanism of raising revenue, which can be directed into
supporting social institutions or into innovation. (47) Australia’s 2012
implementation of a carbon price illustrated Australia’s capacity to adopt such a
mechanism, which should be reinstated as a matter of critical urgency.

       Emissions Trading Schemes

International emissions trading schemes are central to the development of an
effective global carbon market that will foster financially responsible abatement of
GHG emissions. (45) Emissions trading schemes establish aggregate limits on GHG
emissions from specific sources, and require sources to hold permits equal to their
actual emissions. Permits may be traded amongst tradable sources. (45) The
formally legislated Australian emissions trading scheme - which was intended to
“provide Australian businesses greater opportunities to reduce their carbon
footprints at low cost”, was instigated with a commendable rationale. The European
Union Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) has had demonstrable effect in reducing EU
carbon emissions. (45)
Elimination of subsidies to fossil fuel industries

Subsidies of fossil fuels at both state and federal levels, such as accelerated
depreciation and the diesel fuel rebate for mining, must be eliminated. Fuel tax
credits, excise concessions for aviation, accelerated depreciation for oil, gas and
petroleum extraction cost Australian taxpayers $11 billion annually. (48) The
provision of subsidies for GHG-related activities undermines other actions to
mitigate climate change. They represent a distortion of the market by artificially
stimulating fossil fuel industries and sectors. (45) Implicit subsidies created by not
pricing the cost of greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution are estimated to be
worth $23 billion annually. (49) The International Monetary Fund found that
removing fossil fuel subsidies and reflecting costs of air pollution and greenhouse
gas emissions in energy prices would reduce global emissions by 13%. (49) A G20
commitment was made in 2009 to eliminate “inefficient” fossil fuel subsidies, which
have not been addressed. (50)

       Regulation and investment to promote energy efficiency

It is imperative that there is support for regulation of energy efficiency across all
sectors. Regulation and investment should promote efficiency of capital equipment
and development of low-pollution technologies, processes and products for use in
housing, community services and industry. Government efforts “supporting the
establishment of standards, programs and innovative practices to improve energy
efficiency and providing Australian households and businesses with economical
solutions to live and work more sustainably”, as articulated in the 2009 National
Strategy on Energy Efficiency (51),should be commended.

       Investment in Carbon Capture and Storage Initiatives

Carbon Capture involves capturing C02 emissions, liquefying it and pumping it into
geological storage. While there is merit in efforts to enhance carbon sequestration
at the point of emission and through natural processes, the use of carbon
sequestration methods independent of efforts to reduce GHG emissions will not be
effective in climate change mitigation.

AMSA recognises that a range of policy measures must be instigated as tools to achieve
any emissions reduction target. As outlined in the above sections, mitigation of climate
   change has significant co-benefits for protecting human health and wellbeing, and
          should be evaluated in terms of their economic and social efficiency.
1.      United Nations. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
1992.
2.      Copenhagen Accord, (2009).
3.      The Cancun Agreements: Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group
on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention, (2010).
4.      Climate Change Authority. Reducing Australia's Greenhouse Gas Emissions -
Targets and Progress Review: Final Report. 2014.
5.      The Climate Institute.. Australia’s Post-2020 Emission Challenge: Our role in
the international cycle of growing ambition. Available at:
http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/verve/_resources/AustraliasPost2020EmissionC
hallenge_FINAL_LM.pdf: 2014.
6.      Parry I, Heine D, Lis E, Li S. Getting Energy Prices Right. International
Monetary Fund, 2014.
7.      Australian Academy of Science. Australia's renewable Energy Future.
Available at: https://http://www.science.org.au/sites/default/files/user-
content/ausrenewableenergyfuture.pdf: 2010.
8.      Geoscience Australia and ABARE & ABARE. Australian Energy Resource
Assessment. Available at: http://www.ga.gov.au/metadata-
gateway/metadata/record/gcat_70142: 2010.
9.      WWF. Australia can Cut Emissions Deeply and the Cost is Low. Available at:
http://awsassets.wwf.org.au/downloads/fs077_australia_can_cut_emissions_deepl
y_and_the_cost_is_low_21apr15_v2.pdf: 2015.
10.     McGlade C, Ekins P. Un-burnable oil: An examination of oil resource
utilisation in a decarbonised energy system. Energy Policy. 2014;64(0):102-12.
11.     Griffiths E. Budget 2015: Joe Hockey facing massive iron ore write-off but
says no new taxes to recover revenue. ABC News Online. 2015.
12.     The World Bank. World Bank Open Data Available at:
http://data.worldbank.org2015.
13.     ABS. Population Clock Available at:
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Web+Pages/Population+Clock?opend
ocument2015.
14.     Department of Foreign Trade and Affairs (DFAT). Australia's Trade at a
Glance http://dfat.gov.au/trade/resources/trade-at-a-
glance/Pages/default.aspx2014.
15.     International Monetary Fund. World Economic Outlook Database, April 2015
Available at:
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2015/01/weodata/index.aspx2015.
16.     Steffen W Hunter J, Hughes L. Counting the Costs: Climate Change and
Coastal Flooding. Climate Council of Australia: 2014.
17.     Adger WN, Pulhin J, Barnett J, Dabelko GD, Hovelsrud GK, Levy M, et al.
Human security in Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part
A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA:
2014.
18.     The Treasury. Intergenerational Report 2015: Australia in 2055. 2015.
19.    Bambrick H, Dear, K, Woodruff, R, Hanigan, I & McMicahel, A. The Impacts of
Climate Change on Three Health Outcomes: Temperature-Related Mortality and
Hospitalizations, Salmonellosis and Other Bacterial Gastroenteritis and Population
at Risk from Dengue. Cambridge: 2008.
20.    Hughes L, McMichael T. The Critical Decade: Climate Change and Health.
Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, 2011.
21.    The State of Queensland (Queensland Health) annual report 2010–2011.
Availabe at: https://publications.qld.gov.au/storage/f/2014-06-
10T04%3A57%3A48.920Z/part-1.pdf: 2011.
22.    Queensland Health. The Centre for Trauma, Loss and Disaster Recovery
http://health.qld.gov.au/recovery_resources/: Queensland Health; 2011.
23.    Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute. Appetite for change: Global
warming impacts on food and farming regions in Australia. Available at:
http://sustainable.unimelb.edu.au/sites/default/files/MSSI_AppetiteForChange_Rep
ort_2015.pdf: University of Melbourne, 2015.
24.    International Organisation for Migration. Migration and Climate Change. 2008
Contract No.: No. 31.
25.    World Health Organization, editor The Helsinki Statement on Health in All
Policies. The 8th Global Conference on Health Promotion; 10-14 June 2013; Helsinki,
Finland.
26.    Haines A, McMichael AJ, Smith KR, Roberts I, Woodcock J, Markandya A, et
al. Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions:
overview and implications for policy makers. Lancet. 2009;374(9707):2104-14.
27.    Armstrong F, Tait P. Health and Energy Choices: Background Briefing Paper.
201.
28.    Spickett J. Climate Change and Air Quality: The Potential Impact on Health.
Asia Pacific Journal of Public Health. 20011;23(2).
29.    Climate And Health Alliance. Coal in the Hunter: lessons from one valley for
the world. Climate and Health Alliance, 2015.
30.    Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics Department of Transport,
Services. R. Health Impacts of Transport Emissions in Australia: Economic Costs.
2005 Contract No.: BRTE Working Paper 63.
31.    Tilman D, Clark M. Global diets link environmental sustainability and human
health. (1476-4687 (Electronic)).
32.    Edwards P, Roberts I. Population adiposity and climate change. International
Journal of Epidemiology. 2009.
33.    Lowe M. Obesity and climate change mitigation in Australia: overview and
analysis of policies with co-benefits. (1753-6405 (Electronic)).
34.    (AIHW) Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Who is overweight?
Available at: http://www.aihw.gov.au/who-is-overweight/2015.
35.    ACCESS Economics. The growing cost of obesity in 2008 : three years on.
Diabetes Australia, 2008.
36.    Begg S, Vos T, Barker B, et al. The burden of disease and injury in Australia
2003. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2003 Contract No.: 82.
37.       Cadilhac DA, Cumming TB, Sheppard L, Pearce DC, Carter R, Magnus A. The
economic benefits of reducing physical inactivity: an Australian
example.(Research)(Report). The International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and
Physical Activity. 2011;8:99.
38.       Friel S. Climate change, food insecurity and chronic diseases: sustainable
and healthy policy opportunities for Australia. (1839-4345 (Electronic)).
39.       Climate and Health Alliance. Our Uncashed Dividend: The health benefits of
climate action. Available at: http://caha.org.au/wp-
content/uploads/2010/11/OurUncashedDividend_CAHAandTCI_August2012.pdf:
2012.
40.       Geoscience Australia, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource
Economics. Australian Energy Resource Assessment. Canberra: 2010.
41.       Roam Consulting report to Clean Energy Council. Renewable Energy Target
Policy Analysis. 2014.
42.       Needham S. The potential for renewable energy to provide baseload power in
Australia. Available from:
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamenta
ry_Library/pubs/rp/rp0809/09rp09
: 2011.
43.       Fritze JG, Blashki GA, Burke S, Wiseman J. Hope, despair and transformation:
Climate change and the promotion of mental health and wellbeing. International
Journal of Mental Health Systems. 2008;2:13-.
44.       Climate Council. The global renewable energy boom: How Australia is
missing out. 2015.
45.       Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Working Group III contribution
to the IPCC fifth assessment report Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate
Change summary for policy makers. 2014.
46.       World Bank. 73 Countries and Over 1,000 Businesses Speak Out in Support of
a Price on Carbon
http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2014/09/22/governments-
businessessupport-
carbon-pricing 2014.
47.       Garnaut R. The Garnaut Climate Change Review: Final Report. 2008.
48.       Environment Victoria and Market Forces. Ending the fossil fuel industry’s age
of entitlement: An analysis of Australian Government tax measures that encourage
fossil fuel use and more pollution. 2014.
49.       International Monetary Fund. Energy Subsidy Reform : Lessons and
Implications: International Monetary Fund; 2013.
50.       G20. "Leader's Statement". Pittsburgh: 2009.
51.       Council of Australian Governments. National artnership Agreement on Energy
Efficiency Available from:
http://industry.gov.au/Energy/EnergyEfficiency/StrategiesInitiatives/Pages/Nationa
lStrategyEnergyEfficiency.aspx2009.
You can also read
NEXT SLIDES ... Cancel