ST)

The IPCC report says the cost of doing nothing will be worse than that of addressing climate change. (AFP)

Climate change report 'debunks economic argument'

Labor, the Greens and environment groups have seized on the latest UN report on climate change to hammer the Howard Government's policies.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report says reducing greenhouse gas emissions is possible with current technology and it is affordable.

And two of Australia's leading authors of the report say Australia can adjust its economy with a "modest" cost.

Labor says that puts a hole in the Government's argument that tackling climate change will destroy the economy and cost jobs.

The detail in the United Nations report may be complex, but chairman of the IPCC Rajendra Pachauri says its message on climate change is simple.

"It is challenging but at the same time, I don't think we have the luxury of time," he said.

"We have to start doing rather quickly."

And the UN report spells out plainly to the world's governments what their options are: reduce emissions rapidly at a cost of up to 3 per cent of GDP and at most, temperatures will rise by two degrees. But if they do not act, temperatures will rise to dangerous levels and the economic costs will be much greater.

Labor's environment spokesman Peter Garrett says this puts pressure on governments to set emissions targets.

"Mr Howard won't tell us when he's going to target greenhouse gas reductions," he said.

"He won't say by how much he's going to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, and yet this authoritative report shows very clearly that you actually can address the issue of reducing emissions and do it in a way that doesn't significantly impact on economy in the long-term."

He says the effects of global warming on the economy will be worse than ensuring climate change is addressed.

"The report makes it clear that unless we actually start to address climate change now, we face dire economic consequences," he said.

"The report says very clearly that climate change and actually addressing climate change can be contained at a cost of less than 0.1 per cent of the world's GDP.

"That's a very striking figure and it identifies a number of areas that that can be done. And it includes things like coal, and making coal cleaner.

"It includes things like making sure you get stuck into demand management, that you address transport emissions, that you've actually got a whole of government approach to climate change, which is something we've never had from the sceptical, denying Howard Government."

Coal jobs

The Greens climate change spokeswoman Senator Christine Milne agrees that the UN report validates their arguments that reducing greenhouse gas emissions does not have to lead to massive job losses.

"The attitude of saying 'we're not going to address climate change because we're going to try and protect coal jobs is in fact making the dislocation worse when it comes, as the rest of the world repudiates coal and it's also costing us jobs in the renewable energy sector and in the rural sector and with tourism," she said.

"So in fact there are many more jobs to be had by addressing climate change and oil depletion than there are in terms of job losses - it's about acting soon enough to make the transition."

The Minister for the Environment Malcolm Turnbull says he welcomes the IPCC report, and it is in line with the points he raised recently in a speech to the National Press Club.

"The five points I've set out there as our climate change strategy are entirely consistent with the IPCC report on mitigation released yesterday," he said.

"The problems with Labor's policy is they've said we should have a 60 per cent cut in emissions by 2050 regardless of what any other country does."

He says the Opposition has failed to address the issue of job losses in the coal industry.

"It's very significant that when you interviewed Mr Garrett a moment ago, and he was asked a very clear question: will these cuts lead to massive job losses, he did not answer that question."

Nuclear debate

Even though the UN report lists nuclear power as an option to reduce emissions, Senator Milne says it is not an option for Australia because the power stations won't be ready in time.

"We have to address climate change in a very short timeframe, and it's saying that we need to have global emissions peaking within 15 years," she said.

"That is a really strong statement, that is 2022 we're talking about and you are not going to have carbon capture and storage proven in Australia in that time."

But former federal environment department secretary Roger Beale says nuclear power is still an option Australia should consider.

He was a lead author for the UN report and says if emissions can be contained by the 2020s then nuclear power, when it comes on line, will help keep emissions lower.

And Mr Beale also says Australia must be an example for the rest of the world to follow.

"It's sensible for Australia to start reducing its emissions for two very good reasons," he said.

"One is that we ought to be acting to build international confidence in working towards a global agreement, and the best way to do that is to address our own emissions.

"Secondly if we get the framework right, it gives industry time to adjust, and the framework within which can adjust to an inevitably carbon-constrained future."

His fellow lead author for the UN report and ProVice Chancellor of Science at James Cook University is Professor Chris Cocklin.

He says the debate should no longer be about "damage" to the Australian economy, but about opportunities.

"There is certainly another argument which says 'fine, let's make some adjustments', perhaps there'll be some short term losses in economic growth but that's a debatable point," he said.

"But you may have a better economic future if you embrace a lower carbon economy.

"And that's certainly one of the key messages underpinning a lot of European policy - let's just invent a new economy that has a lesser carbon impact."