Your details
1. What is your name?
Name
(Required)
Tara Black
3. Are you submitting as an individual, or on behalf of an organisation/group?
Please select one item
(Required)
Radio button:
Ticked
I am submitting as an individual.
Radio button:
Unticked
I am submitting on behalf of an organisation or group.
Share 'one big thing' or upload a file
5. Are you here to tell us your one big thing?
Your one big thing:
To Climate Change Commission,
There is no evidence to suggest weakening the 2050 target, and plenty of evidence to consider strengthening the target. I strongly recommend strengthening the target, and believe there is enough evidence of significant change since 2019 to justify this, and believe methane should be treated the same (especially since it has such a damaging upfront effect), so the target should be strengthened to net zero for both gases.
I agree that the current predictions by CCC of overshoot and not meeting our international burden-sharing quota means we need to ramp up reduction efforts, and set more ambitious targets. When the tundra melts carbon will be emitted that is not currently accounted for. There is too much that isn't being counted, we have to assume that we are more behind than we think.
I am also concerned that if we do not strengthen the targets now, we will have to wait another 5 years to reassess - I don’t believe we have time to wait until then. The difference between staying below 1.5C and overshooting is life and death for climate vulnerable communities. Every fraction of a degree will save lives. It is imperative that we go as far and as fast as we can towards reducing our emissions.We must ensure equitable actions are taken to not leave our most vulnerable behind. Thankfully, this is not a zero-sum game. There are policy decisions governments can make that support our most affected communities and rapidly reduce our emissions. These are nature-based, mana-enhancing, community-strengthening decisions that we can take today, without needing to wait for them to be developed. Waiting for technological developments is a fool's game and is promoted by oil companies who know these technologies are not credible.
Additionally, as a high-income country with disproportionate historical emissions, we owe it to ourselves and our fellow citizens of the world - particularly our climate-vulnerable neighbours in the Pacific Ocean - to step up to the plate instead of dragging our heels. It is shameful that we are currently relying on large offset payments to meet our 2030 target! It is also a bad economic decision. It will be cheaper to reduce our emissions than pay offsets, even if the offsets are likely to exist. If no one is reducing their emissions, how are we possibly going to off-set? Why would prudent economic managers ever consider such a thing? We should build more renewables and get other countries to pay us the off-sets (actually, this isn't a great idea, since countries look set to capitulate on their obligations anyway).
However, it doesn't matter that other countries look like they are shedding their obligations, we need to step up and be world leaders. I think our young people need something to be proud and hopeful about, rather than just giving up.
Tara Black
There is no evidence to suggest weakening the 2050 target, and plenty of evidence to consider strengthening the target. I strongly recommend strengthening the target, and believe there is enough evidence of significant change since 2019 to justify this, and believe methane should be treated the same (especially since it has such a damaging upfront effect), so the target should be strengthened to net zero for both gases.
I agree that the current predictions by CCC of overshoot and not meeting our international burden-sharing quota means we need to ramp up reduction efforts, and set more ambitious targets. When the tundra melts carbon will be emitted that is not currently accounted for. There is too much that isn't being counted, we have to assume that we are more behind than we think.
I am also concerned that if we do not strengthen the targets now, we will have to wait another 5 years to reassess - I don’t believe we have time to wait until then. The difference between staying below 1.5C and overshooting is life and death for climate vulnerable communities. Every fraction of a degree will save lives. It is imperative that we go as far and as fast as we can towards reducing our emissions.We must ensure equitable actions are taken to not leave our most vulnerable behind. Thankfully, this is not a zero-sum game. There are policy decisions governments can make that support our most affected communities and rapidly reduce our emissions. These are nature-based, mana-enhancing, community-strengthening decisions that we can take today, without needing to wait for them to be developed. Waiting for technological developments is a fool's game and is promoted by oil companies who know these technologies are not credible.
Additionally, as a high-income country with disproportionate historical emissions, we owe it to ourselves and our fellow citizens of the world - particularly our climate-vulnerable neighbours in the Pacific Ocean - to step up to the plate instead of dragging our heels. It is shameful that we are currently relying on large offset payments to meet our 2030 target! It is also a bad economic decision. It will be cheaper to reduce our emissions than pay offsets, even if the offsets are likely to exist. If no one is reducing their emissions, how are we possibly going to off-set? Why would prudent economic managers ever consider such a thing? We should build more renewables and get other countries to pay us the off-sets (actually, this isn't a great idea, since countries look set to capitulate on their obligations anyway).
However, it doesn't matter that other countries look like they are shedding their obligations, we need to step up and be world leaders. I think our young people need something to be proud and hopeful about, rather than just giving up.
Tara Black