Australia's government has announced a new emissions reduction target of 62 to 70 percent below 2005 levels by 2035. This announcement has sparked immediate criticism from climate scientists and environmental groups, who argue that the target is insufficient to combat climate change effectively.

Bill Hare, a co-founder of Climate Analytics, expressed disappointment, stating, "It’s worse than I feared." He emphasized that a target of 76 percent is necessary for Australia to align with the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Hare pointed out the contradiction in the government's simultaneous release of a National Climate Risk Assessment, which warned of severe consequences if global warming continues, while setting a target that could lead to a temperature increase of at least 2 degrees.

Dr. Simon Bradshaw from Greenpeace echoed this sentiment, stating, "No climate scientist on the planet would say this target aligns with limiting warming to 1.5 degrees." The government’s own assessment indicates that at 1.5 degrees of warming, the Great Barrier Reef would face significant damage, while at 2 degrees, it is expected to die.

In defense of the target, Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen argued that it must be both ambitious and achievable. He stated, "A target over 70 is not achievable," and reiterated that the government has set the maximum level of ambition that is feasible.

Amanda McKenzie from the Climate Council noted the growing tension between what is necessary and what is possible, given the current trajectory of climate change. Bowen highlighted the severe impacts of rising temperatures, citing increased heat-related deaths in major cities as temperatures rise.

The announcement also included a $5 billion investment aimed at decarbonizing heavy industry, with significant cuts expected in the transport, energy, and industrial sectors. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese described the target as a "sweet spot" between credibility and ambition, asserting that it is backed by a practical plan.

However, the response from opposition parties and environmental groups has been largely negative. Opposition leader Sussan Ley criticized the target for lacking credibility and cost-effectiveness. Environmental organizations, including the Australian Conservation Foundation, called the target "timid," arguing that it falls short of the necessary reductions to address climate change effectively.

Richie Merzian, a former climate negotiator, noted that while the target may reassure investors, it is unlikely to keep Australia on track to meet the Paris Agreement goals. He stated, "No, probably not," when asked if the target would suffice to limit warming to 1.5 degrees.

The Business Council of Australia welcomed the target but emphasized that achieving even the lower end would require significant investment. Meanwhile, some industry leaders expressed concerns about the feasibility of reaching the target without favorable conditions in technology and policy.

As Australia prepares to submit its new targets under the Paris Agreement by the end of September, the debate over the adequacy of its climate commitments continues.