[My
underline and
bold]
It was /…/
heavily criticised by environmental organisations, including Friends of the Earth[10] and Rising Tide.[11] The Australian Conservation Foundation praised the report for advocating a 450 ppm target, but was critical of Professor Garnaut’s 550ppm second best option and described the 2020 target of 10 per cent as weak.[12]
Dr Clive Hamilton was
heavily critical of the report, arguing that
it reduced global expectations of what should be aimed for, naively exposed Australia's negotiating tactics to the international diplomatic sphere, alienates both the Australian public and the international community,
misjudges the time frames necessary to avoid dangerous climate change, gives Australia numerous special deals, and would be rejected by the international community.[13]
Responses from political parties were mixed. Australian Greens leader Bob Brown suggested that the report demonstrated that reducing greenhouse gas emissions would not come at the expense of Australia's economic growth.[14] Climate Change Minister Penny Wong did not comment directly on the report but said that economic responsibility needed to be considered in responding to the report, and that the Government would wait for Treasury modelling on climate change mitigation before responding.[15]
Source:
Garnaut Climate Change Review - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
