Momentum is swinging towards more climate action, but Australia is sticking to its current targets

Momentum. It's what every campaigner covets.

Advocates for greater action on climate change can feel it. "The Big Mo" is swinging their way.

But if they were hoping the momentum would sweep up the Australian Government and see Scott Morrison join the wash of nations committing to net-zero emissions by 2050, disappointment awaits.

The Prime Minister is resisting the pressure to set a clear time frame for net-zero emissions, or to cut more emissions over the next decade.

This weekend, the United Nations, United Kingdom and France will host a virtual summit for world leaders to demonstrate "new, enhanced ambition" on emissions reduction.

The United Kingdom, as host of the next round of global climate negotiations in Glasgow — postponed until 2021 because of COVID-19 — is pushing hard for nations to come with significant contributions to make.

Unlike the last session in 2019 in New York, Mr Morrison will attend this one as he has something to say.

But it is probably not what the organisers and advocates for great action on climate change want to hear.

Speaking slots for the Climate Ambition Summit will be granted to the leaders making the biggest improvements to their climate action commitments.

The United Kingdom's conservative Prime Minister Boris Johnson will address the summit, having promised a 68 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030, based on 1990 emissions levels.

Were US president-elect Joe Biden in office this week, he would no doubt get a guernsey for committing to re-join the Paris Agreement and promising net-zero emissions by 2050.

Japan, South Korea and the EU have committed to net-zero emissions by 2050, and China by 2060 — the kinds of commitments the organisers are hoping to encourage.

But when they finally settle on who gets to speak, it is highly unlikely Australia will be on the rundown.

Government's focus on how rather than when will not please organisers

The Federal Government is sticking with its current commitment of 26-to-28 per cent emissions reduction by 2030, based on 2005 levels, which is miserly compared to the UK's recent commitment.

Scott Morrison's hazy commitment to reach net-zero emissions "in the second half of the century" doesn't cut it, either.

Despite softening his tone on using carry-over credits, Scott Morrison declaring they will not be needing them is not the same as conceding their illegitimacy.

Whilst using carry-over credits is not explicitly banned under the rules of the Paris Agreement, the Federal Government has found no support diplomatically from allies for claiming them.

After all, the Paris Agreement is not the second innings to the Kyoto Protocol's first innings. It is a separate test match altogether.

The runs scored in past decades don't count towards outcomes of future innings.

While the world looks for commitments to reach net-zero emissions as soon as possible, Scott Morrison isn't so much at the back of the pack as marching to a different tune altogether.

Scott Morrison — if he were to be given the chance — would use the summit as a roadshow for the "Technology Investment Roadmap".

The Technology Investment Roadmap is the one emissions-related policy the Coalition could agree on, and it supports the development of green technology as a means of reducing emissions.

In short, it is using public funds to back development of hydrogen power, electricity storage (to firm renewable energy), low-emissions steel production, carbon capture and storage, and soil carbon measurement.

The Coalition promotes the plan as a "practical" approach to tackling climate, focused on "how" rather than "when" emissions will be reduced.

In effect, it is relying on prospective technologies to deliver massive carbon abatement in the future, rather than making changes now to reduce emissions by already available options.

It is prioritising the unknown over the known.

It is not what the organisers of the Climate Ambition Summit are looking for.

Weak agreements have let Australia and New Zealand delay progress reports

Australia's relatively weak target — 26-28 per cent reduction by 2030 — is not just a function of the parlous state of climate politics in Canberra.

It is also abetted by the camel of a compromise that is the Paris Agreement.

When negotiations reached crunch point in the Parisian suburb of Le Bourget five years ago, it was clear there would be no agreement on an international mechanism for reducing emissions.

In the face of concluding with nothing, there was a scramble to come up with something, to ensure the Kyoto Protocol wasn't left without a successor.

That "something" was Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs): a system whereby most nations could agree in principle to limit global warming to 1.5-2 degrees, but not have to commit to an international system of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to achieve it.

Instead, NDCs allow countries to choose their own targets and methods for reducing emissions, which would be upgraded at least once every five years, but ideally more regularly than that.

The Morrison Government is using that structure to its advantage.

Countries were supposed to lodge their five-year update this year at Glasgow, but COVID-19 has seen it pushed back until November 2021.

While some countries, like the UK, are updating their emissions reduction targets this year anyway, Australia is putting it off until next year.

The delay has bought New Zealand some breathing space, too.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has offered vocal support for climate action, culminating in New Zealand's parliament declaring a climate emergency last week.

But the actions haven't quite matched the rhetoric, with New Zealand's emissions having continued to rise since 1990.

Both Australia and New Zealand have been pressured by the UK to step up their action.

A fortnight ago, the British High Commissioner to Australia, Vicki Treadell, was almost in tears as she spoke at a function in Canberra of the need for stronger global action on climate change.

Her counterpart in Wellington, Laura Clarke, has admonished the New Zealand Government for "a gap … between ambition and reality."

Pacific nations will pile on the pressure, too, when Scott Morrison and Jacinda Ardern join a meeting of Pacific Island Forum (PIF) leaders on Friday, on the eve of the Climate Ambition Summit.

The PIF chair, Tuvalu Prime Minister Kausea Natano, called the meeting in an effort to co-ordinate the region's push for stronger global action.

The Pacific island leaders want Australia to be more ambitious and to use its middle-power status to advance their cause.

They will be disappointed, but not surprised, by Australia's resistance to the global momentum for action.

Could Morrison use his command to increase Australia's ambition?

Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott — no friend of climate change action — would say Australia should do its part, but no more than its fair share.

With new commitments from the UK, US, China, Japan and South Korea, it could be argued Australia's fair share is now more than 26-28 per cent by 2030 and reaching of net zero some time before 2100.

Scott Morrison has commanding authority over the Coalition party room, which is as settled now as he could ever hope it would be.

So why not lift Australia's ambition?

He is a pragmatist who will shift when he has to, but that does not mean he is looking for opportunities to do so.

There is the clunky international system that allows weak national contributions, an opposition that can't settle its own approach to climate change, and plenty of other issues on the agenda demanding attention (a global pandemic, no less).

The momentum for action on climate change is growing. But there's not yet enough power in it to budge the Coalition.