Australia's Role in International Climate Action
In 2015, 196 nations signed the Paris Agreement committing to limit warming to well below 2°C, yet current national pledges combined still track toward 2.5°C by 2100.
Printable Worksheets
Print or save as PDF, or build a custom worksheet from any module's questions.
● Know
- The Paris Agreement: keep warming below 2°C, pursue 1.5°C; countries submit NDCs
- Australia's NDC: 43% below 2005 levels by 2030; net zero 2050
- Australia's sectoral emissions breakdown: electricity 32%, transport 18%, agriculture 16%
● Understand
- The tension between Australia's export economy (coal/gas) and its climate commitments
- Why Australia's high per-capita emissions matter in international comparisons
- How Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs) and Indigenous land management connect to climate policy
● Can do
- Match climate policies to their scale (international, national, state)
- Evaluate Australia's climate position using specific data
- Construct a two-truths-one-lie task about Australian emissions
In December 2015, delegates from 196 countries gathered in Paris and, after two weeks of negotiations, adopted a climate agreement in the early hours of 12 December, representatives embraced and wept in the conference hall as the gavel fell. The result was the Paris Agreement, adopted at the 21st Conference of Parties (COP21). Its central goal is to limit global average temperature rise to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, with a more ambitious target of limiting warming to 1.5°C, recognising that at 1.5°C far fewer people and ecosystems face severe impacts compared to 2°C.
The mechanism for achieving this is Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) each country submits its own climate action plan describing emission reduction targets and policies. NDCs are voluntary rather than legally binding, but countries are legally required to submit them and to increase their ambition every 5 years. A global "stocktake" assesses collective progress every 5 years.
The Paris Agreement represents a historic shift from earlier approaches (like the Kyoto Protocol, which only obligated developed countries): under Paris, all countries, both developed and developing, must submit NDCs. This reflects the recognition that solving climate change requires global participation, not just action from wealthy nations.
Current collective NDC commitments, even if fully implemented, are estimated to lead to approximately 2.5–2.7°C of warming by 2100, well above the 1.5°C target. Significant strengthening of ambition is required.
The half-degree between 1.5°C and 2°C makes a significant difference: at 1.5°C, 70% of coral reefs are projected to decline severely; at 2°C, over 99% face severe decline. At 1.5°C, Arctic summers remain mostly ice-covered; at 2°C, summer sea-ice loss is essentially complete every decade or so. Sea-level rise by 2100 is projected to be 10 cm lower at 1.5°C than at 2°C. For Pacific island nations and the GBR, the difference between 1.5 and 2°C is often described as the difference between difficult adaptation and existential threat.
Australia and the Paris Agreement: Australia ratified the Paris Agreement in 2016. Under the Morrison government (2018-22), Australia's NDC was criticised internationally as insufficient, with several Pacific island nations publicly calling for Australia to strengthen its targets. Under the Albanese government (elected 2022), Australia raised its NDC target from 26-28% to 43% below 2005 levels by 2030, and committed to net zero by 2050. This shift in ambition was significant but still subject to debate about whether it is consistent with the 1.5°C target given Australia's high per-capita emissions.
"The Paris Agreement means climate change is solved." The Paris Agreement established a framework and targets, but it does not guarantee those targets will be met. Current commitments are insufficient to reach 1.5°C. The Agreement relies on countries voluntarily strengthening their NDCs over time (the "ratchet mechanism"). Scientists assess its effectiveness based on whether countries' actual policies match their stated commitments and whether ambition is rising fast enough.
Understanding Australia's emissions requires distinguishing between different ways of counting:
Territorial emissions (~496 Mt CO₂-e in 2023): Australia accounts for approximately 1.3% of global greenhouse gas emissions by territory, a significant share for a country of ~26 million people, but small in absolute terms compared to China (30%), USA (14%) or EU (7%).
Per-capita emissions: Australia's per-capita emissions are approximately 15–16 tonnes CO₂-e per person per year among the highest in the OECD, much higher than the global average of about 7 tonnes. This reflects Australia's electricity mix (historically coal-dependent), driving culture, heavy industry, and land clearing.
Sectoral breakdown (approximate 2023):
Electricity generation: ~32% (historically coal-dominated; falling rapidly as renewables grow)
Transport: ~18% (predominantly road; EVs just beginning to penetrate)
Agriculture: ~16% (livestock methane and nitrous oxide from soils)
Industry and mining: ~16%
Fugitive emissions (gas/coal leaks): ~10%
Waste, buildings, other: ~8%
State-level policies: The ACT became 100% renewable electricity in 2020. Victoria has a target of 95% renewables by 2035. South Australia regularly exceeds 100% renewable generation in real-time. Queensland has targets of 80% renewables by 2035 and 100% by 2050. State policies have often been more ambitious than federal policy.
Australia: ~16 t CO₂-e per person. USA: ~15 t. Canada: ~18 t. Germany: ~8 t. UK: ~6 t. France: ~5 t. India: ~2.5 t. Global average: ~7 t. Australia's per-capita footprint is roughly 2× the global average and compares unfavourably with most European countries. Even accounting for Australia's mining and agriculture export sector (which generates emissions for goods consumed overseas), per-capita emissions are high relative to comparable economies. This framing, rather than Australia's small share of global emissions, is often used in international climate negotiations to argue for stronger Australian targets.
The Safeguard Mechanism (reformed 2023): The Albanese government reformed Australia's Safeguard Mechanism in 2023, requiring Australia's 215 largest industrial emitters to reduce their emissions in line with a 4.9% annual decline in emissions intensity, with a trajectory consistent with net zero by 2050. This is the first time large industrial facilities in Australia have faced a legal obligation to reduce their emissions. Facilities that exceed their baseline must purchase ACCUs or Safeguard Mechanism Credits (SMCs) to offset excess emissions.
"Australia only emits 1.3% of global emissions, so we can't make a difference." This argument ignores: (1) Australia's per-capita emissions are among the world's highest; (2) if every country with 1–2% of global emissions used this logic, global action would be impossible; (3) Australia has significant influence as an OECD member and coal/gas exporter on global policy; (4) Australia's renewable resources could enable it to become a significant green energy exporter (green hydrogen, solar exports), which would have positive global impact beyond its territorial emissions.
Australia is the world's second-largest coal exporter and a major LNG (liquefied natural gas) exporter. In 2023, Australia exported approximately 365 million tonnes of coal and over 80 million tonnes of LNG. When that coal and gas is burned overseas, it produces CO₂, but under international accounting rules (Kyoto Protocol / Paris Agreement), those emissions count in the importing country's inventory, not Australia's.
This creates a significant conceptual debate:
The case for not counting exported emissions in Australia's total: Countries are accountable for what happens on their territory. The importing country makes the decision to buy and burn the fossil fuel. Australia cannot control what another sovereign nation does with its exports. Most countries use this "production" accounting boundary.
The case for including exported emissions in Australia's responsibility: If Australia ceased exporting coal tomorrow, those emissions would not occur (or would be substantially reduced). Australia profits economically from those emissions. The atmosphere does not care where the coal was burned. Australia's coal exports produce approximately 3–4 times Australia's own territorial emissions, making Australia, in "consumption" terms, one of the world's largest emission contributors.
This is not just an abstract debate. Australia's Pacific island neighbours, who face existential risk from climate change, regularly argue that Australia must account for its export emissions, not just its territorial ones. Australian climate scientists generally acknowledge that both perspectives are legitimate, while noting that international policy currently uses the territorial accounting system.
Australia's territorial emissions: ~496 Mt CO₂-e per year. Emissions from burning Australia's coal exports: approximately 700–800 Mt CO₂-e per year (burning all exported coal at its average energy content). Emissions from Australia's LNG exports: approximately 150–200 Mt CO₂-e per year. So if exported emissions were counted, Australia's climate "footprint" would be roughly 3–4 times its official figure. For context, Australia has a population of 26 million, roughly 0.3% of the world's population.
Pacific neighbours and Australia's climate policy: Tuvalu, Kiribati, the Marshall Islands, Vanuatu and other Pacific Island Forum nations face existential threats from sea-level rise. At diplomatic forums and at COP climate negotiations, Pacific leaders have consistently called on Australia to do more, specifically noting that Australia's coal exports undermine global emissions reductions. Former Fijian PM Frank Bainimarama said at COP26 that "for Fiji, the battle against climate change is a battle for our survival." Australia's relationships with Pacific neighbours are directly affected by perceptions of the strength of its climate commitments.
"If Australia doesn't sell coal, someone else will, so it makes no difference." This is the "drug dealer" argument applied to fossil fuels. While it's true other suppliers exist, Australia is the largest or second-largest coal exporter globally, reducing Australian supply would affect global coal prices, potentially reducing overall consumption. More importantly, this argument proves too much: if applied universally, no country could ever claim its individual action matters, making collective global action impossible by definition.
Indigenous land management and ACCUs: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander land managers can earn Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs) for projects that reduce emissions or store carbon. The most significant pathway is the Savanna Fire Management methodology, conducting cool burns early in the dry season to prevent high-intensity late dry season fires that emit far more emissions. Large savanna fire management projects in the Northern Territory and WA, run by Traditional Owner groups, earn millions of ACCUs annually, generating significant income for remote Indigenous communities while reducing national emissions. This represents an important intersection of Indigenous cultural practice, economic development and climate policy.
The role of science communication: The science of climate change is settled, there is overwhelming consensus among climate scientists that human activities are causing climate change. But public understanding and political action lag behind the science. Effective science communication involves:
- Explaining the evidence clearly and accessibly without oversimplification
- Addressing misinformation with factual, evidence-based responses
- Explaining the difference between scientific certainty (the cause of warming) and remaining uncertainty (exact regional impacts)
- Connecting global data to locally relevant impacts that audiences can understand and relate to
- Presenting the consensus clearly: the IPCC represents the work of thousands of scientists reviewing tens of thousands of peer-reviewed studies
The West Arnhem Land Fire Abatement (WALFA) project, begun in 2006, was the world's first registered carbon offset project based on Indigenous savanna fire management. Yolngu rangers conduct early dry season burns over ~28,000 km² in Arnhem Land, reducing total annual area burned and the number of high-intensity fires. The project has verified emissions reductions of approximately 100,000 tonnes CO₂-e per year and has generated over $10 million in ACCU revenue for Traditional Owner groups. It has become a model replicated across northern Australia and studied internationally as a combination of ecological, cultural and economic benefit.
The Climate Council of Australia (an independent, crowd-funded organisation led by climate scientists including Professor Tim Flannery) is dedicated to science communication about climate change for Australian audiences. The Climate Council publishes accessible research summaries, rapid-response fact-checks of climate misinformation, and commissioned reports on specific Australian climate impacts. It represents a model for how scientists can communicate directly to the public and policy makers without the constraints of government messaging. Their reports are widely cited in Australian media and policy discussions.
"There is still debate among scientists about whether climate change is human-caused." There is not. Multiple studies of the scientific literature have found 97%+ consensus among actively publishing climate scientists that recent warming is primarily human-caused. The IPCC AR6 (2021) used the word "unequivocal." The appearance of scientific debate is largely manufactured through strategic amplification of a tiny minority of dissenting views in media and political discourse. This is well-documented and is called "manufactured doubt," a strategy similar to that used by the tobacco industry regarding the health effects of smoking.
Wrong: "Australia only produces 1.3% of global emissions, so our actions can't make a difference." This ignores per-capita emissions (among the world's highest), Australia's influence as a major coal exporter, and the logical consequence: if every country with 1–2% of emissions used this reasoning, no collective action would ever be taken.
Right: Australia's per-capita emissions of ~16 t/person are among the OECD's highest. Exporting coal that produces 3–4× Australia's own emissions gives Australia significant global climate responsibility. Climate action requires every country to contribute, regardless of percentage share.
Wrong: "Scientists disagree about climate change, so the science is not settled." There is 97%+ consensus among active climate scientists on human causation. The IPCC's AR6 (2021) is unequivocal. The appearance of debate is largely manufactured by strategic communication, not reflective of actual scientific disagreement about the fundamental cause.
Right: Climate science has an exceptionally strong consensus. Remaining genuine scientific uncertainty is about regional impact details, feedback magnitudes and exact timelines, not about whether humans are causing warming. The IPCC process represents thousands of scientists reviewing tens of thousands of peer-reviewed studies.
Wrong: "Australia's coal exports don't count as Australian emissions because they're burned overseas." While this is the current international accounting rule, it is a political and legal convention, not a physical fact. The CO₂ from Australian coal enters the global atmosphere regardless of which country's account it appears in. The exported emissions debate is about moral responsibility and global effectiveness, not just accounting.
Right: Under current Paris Agreement rules, exported emissions count in the importer's inventory. However, many scientists and Pacific island nations argue that Australia bears moral responsibility for emissions enabled by its exports, since the atmosphere doesn't recognise national accounting boundaries. This is a legitimate ethical and policy debate, separate from the accounting convention.
Australia at the Climate Crossroads
Economic transition: Australia earns approximately $100 billion per year from coal and gas exports, a significant portion of national income. As global coal demand declines (driven by cheaper renewables), Australia faces a major economic transition challenge. The question of how to manage the transition for workers in mining regions (Hunter Valley, Latrobe Valley, Bowen Basin) while reducing emissions is one of the central political challenges of the next decade.
Green energy exporter potential: Ironically, Australia's fossil fuel export infrastructure, technical expertise and geographic position also make it well-placed to become a major exporter of green hydrogen and potentially of solar electricity via undersea cables to Southeast Asia. Several projects are under development, though commercial scale remains 5–15 years away.
Pacific relationships: Australia's relationships with Pacific Island Forum nations, including diplomatic, security, economic and people-to-people ties, are significantly influenced by climate diplomacy. The Tuvalu-Australia Falepili Union (2023) and other Pacific agreements are an emerging model of climate-linked foreign policy that recognises the intersection of climate vulnerability, security and migration.
Climate Policy Across Scales
Should Australia Count Its Exported Emissions?
If Australia stopped all coal and gas exports tomorrow, what do you predict would happen to global CO₂ emissions? Would they fall dramatically, fall slightly, stay the same, or rise? Explain your reasoning.
How close was your prediction?
Earlier you expressed your view on whether Australia is doing enough on climate change, and on who should be responsible for exported emissions.
Now that you've worked through the lesson, has your view changed? What specific data or evidence has most influenced your thinking?
Q1. Describe the Paris Agreement and explain how Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) work. Why do scientists argue that current collective NDC commitments are insufficient to achieve the 1.5°C target?
Q2. Explain how savanna fire management projects led by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups in northern Australia contribute to both climate mitigation and Indigenous economic development. Describe the role of Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs) in this process.
Q3. Evaluate Australia's position in international climate action. In your answer: (a) describe Australia's NDC target, (b) explain the tension between Australia's fossil fuel export economy and its climate commitments, and (c) use Australia's per-capita emissions data to assess whether its contribution is proportionate to its international responsibilities.
Revisit Your Thinking
Go back to your Think First answers about Australia's climate action and exported emissions.
- What specific data from this lesson most changed or strengthened your initial view?
- Do you now have a clearer position on the exported emissions question?
Model answers (click to reveal)
Answers
▾MCQ 1
B The Paris Agreement's central goal is to limit warming to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, with efforts to pursue 1.5°C. These two targets were set because the 0.5°C difference is scientifically significant for coral reefs, sea ice, sea-level rise and extreme weather.
MCQ 2
D Australia's per-capita emissions (~15–16 t/person) are approximately double the global average (~7 t/person). This means that although Australia's territorial share is relatively small, its per-capita contribution is disproportionately high, which is the relevant metric for international burden-sharing discussions.
MCQ 3
A Under the Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement's "production-side" accounting, emissions are attributed to the country in which fossil fuels are burned, not where they were mined or extracted. Japan, as the country that burns the coal, counts those emissions in its national inventory.
MCQ 4
C Australia's current NDC (updated 2022 under the Albanese government) is a 43% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below 2005 levels by 2030, and net zero emissions by 2050.
MCQ 5
B The 1.3% figure uses territorial accounting and raw totals, but ignores that: (1) per-capita emissions are ~2× the global average (suggesting disproportionate individual-level contribution); (2) exported coal produces ~3–4× Australia's own territorial emissions when burned; (3) if all similarly-sized emitters used the same logic, no collective action would ever be taken.
Short Answer 1
Model answer: The Paris Agreement is an international climate treaty adopted in 2015 and signed by 196 countries. Its central goal is to limit global average temperature rise to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, with efforts to pursue 1.5°C. The mechanism is Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs): each country submits its own self-determined climate action plan to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), describing its emission reduction targets and policies. NDCs are voluntary rather than legally binding, but countries are legally obligated to submit them and to increase their ambition every 5 years. A global stocktake every 5 years assesses collective progress. Current collective NDC commitments, even if fully implemented, are projected to lead to approximately 2.5–2.7°C of warming by 2100, well above the 1.5°C target. This gap between pledges and the Paris temperature goal exists because many countries' pledges are still not ambitious enough, and because implementation has been uneven. The IPCC concludes that emissions must approximately halve by 2030 and reach net zero by the early 2050s to stay below 1.5°C, a trajectory that current NDCs do not collectively achieve.
Short Answer 2
Model answer: Savanna fire management projects use traditional Indigenous ecological knowledge to conduct cool (low-intensity) burns early in the dry season across large areas of northern Australian savanna. These early burns reduce accumulated fuel loads and create a mosaic of vegetation patches at different growth stages. This prevents the far larger, hotter and more emission-intensive fires that would otherwise occur in the late dry season. The emissions reduction compared to an unmanaged baseline can be quantified and verified by independent auditors. Once verified, the project earns Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs), each representing one tonne of CO₂-equivalent emissions avoided. Project operators can sell ACCUs to companies required to offset their emissions (e.g. under the Safeguard Mechanism) or to voluntary buyers. For Traditional Owner groups running these projects (e.g. the West Arnhem Land Fire Abatement project, which covers ~28,000 km²), ACCU revenues provide significant income, often millions of dollars annually, enabling ranger employment, cultural land management activities and community services. The approach creates a triple benefit: ecological (reduced fire damage, maintained biodiversity), cultural (enables continuation of cultural burning practices), and economic (income for remote Indigenous communities).
Short Answer 3
Model answer: (a) Australia's NDC under the Paris Agreement (updated 2022) commits to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 43% below 2005 levels by 2030, and to reaching net zero by 2050. State governments have set more ambitious renewable electricity targets (SA regularly exceeds 100%, Victoria targets 95% by 2035). (b) Australia faces a significant tension between its fossil fuel export economy and its climate commitments. Australia is the world's second-largest coal exporter and a major LNG exporter, earning approximately $100 billion per year from these exports. These exports generate significant employment, particularly in regional Queensland, NSW and WA. Reducing exports would have major economic and social impacts on these communities. However, the emissions from burning Australia's exported coal and gas are approximately 3–4 times Australia's own territorial emissions, meaning Australia's global climate footprint is far larger than its official 1.3% share suggests. Australia's Pacific Island neighbours, who face existential threats from sea-level rise, regularly call on Australia to both strengthen domestic targets and reduce fossil fuel exports. (c) Assessment using per-capita data: Australia's per-capita emissions of ~15–16 t/person are approximately double the global average of ~7 t/person and higher than most European OECD countries (UK ~6 t, France ~5 t, Germany ~8 t). From a per-capita equity perspective, the principle that each person should have an equal right to emit, Australia's emissions are disproportionately high. While absolute territorial emissions are small (~1.3% global share), the per-capita framing suggests Australia's contribution to the climate problem is not proportionate to a globally equitable share, and that stronger action is warranted. This is the basis on which many scientists and Pacific nations argue Australia should do more.