Last week, President Obama released an ambitious plan to cut pollution from power plants that will enable the US to meet a target of 40 per cent emissions reduction below 2005 levels by 2030.

France went one better outlining plans to cut France's greenhouse gas emissions by 40 per cent by 2030 and introduce a rising carbon price.

And today the Federal Government announced that it would not even get close to these numbers, setting a range of 26-28 per cent reduction by 2030.

The difference is not only the numbers, but the actions behind them. My concern is that I don’t think the Abbott Government has a credible plan to meet even this modest target. The rest of the world, including some of our closest allies, are becoming increasingly frustrated with the Australian Government’s approach.

It is not only our climate that is in peril, but our international reputation as well.

Australia will continue to lead all developed countries with the highest greenhouse gas emissions per person and the highest greenhouse gas emissions intensity per unit of GDP growth, even if the government's new targets for greenhouse emission reductions by 2030 are achieved. This is not what the government meant when they said that Australia was a world leader at the announcement this morning. Australian emissions per person and emissions intensity will continue to be higher than for the USA, China and the EU. If other countries followed Australia's lead on weak emission reductions then the world will be heading for global warming of three degrees or more, with many adverse impacts particularly in Australia.

Leading from the rear is not a common Australian approach. In this case it will likely mean missing out on many opportunities for new jobs and new industries in Australia as part of the transition to a zero carbon economy.

This new target is a step in the right direction. The science tells us that on a global scale we need to move towards zero carbon emissions by mid-century to avoid the most serious impacts of climate change. So while some will argue that the Australian target could have been more ambitious, it does start us on the path towards this longer term goal.

Though it could have been worse, a 26 per cent target is about half of what is really needed, and is weak enough to reinforce Australia's new reputation as the world's foot-dragger. Global warming poses a much more serious risk to our future economy than conservation or alternative energy would, so that excuse makes absolutely no sense.

A 26 to 28 per cent reduction target at 2030 falls far short of the international 2 degree goal. Most other developed countries’ targets also fall short, but generally by less than Australia’s.

Among the international community, the target is likely to be perceived as falling short in its ambition relative to Australia’s opportunities to cut emissions deeply. However this target means Australia is at least on the boat with international climate action, even if considered a laggard. Domestically it opens the door to stronger climate change action. A credible plan for domestic policy to achieve the target will be needed.

Australia’s target for reduction in absolute emissions is significantly weaker than that of the United States and the EU, weaker than Canada’s, and on par with Japan’s. The choice of 2005 makes Australia's target look better than under other base years. When comparing the targeted 2030 emissions level to emissions in the year 2000 or 2012, Australia’s target is much weaker than that of the comparator countries.

In per capita terms, Australia’s emissions are the highest among all major countries, and this would continue under the announced target. At 2030, emissions per person in Australia would be double the levels targeted in the EU and Japan, and higher than the targeted levels in the United States and Canada.

Part of the reason is emissions intensive production of commodities for export, but in this field as in many others Australia has good opportunities for cutting emissions by improving technologies and modernizing the economy

The government’s assumption that setting a globally responsible, stronger target will damage the Australian economy is deeply flawed.

As expert groups like the International Energy Agency and IPCC have pointed out, there is substantial negative cost (ie profitable) abatement potential available, much of it through energy efficiency improvement and innovation.

At the same time, as noted by Prof Ross Garnaut and Dr Frank Jotzo, the cost of many abatement measures, such as renewable energy, has declined much faster than expected, and will continue to fall through economies of scale and ‘learning by doing’ if we support them.

Further, we can now see that trying to prop up our fossil fuel industries while global demand for them falls is a false economy that undermines our overall economic future.

The number itself is almost meaningless. Without proper joined-up policy that involves a carbon price, integrated with a mature energy policy designed to make the transition from coal to low-carbon energy as profitable and equitable as possible, such targets are of little use. If the government will not use their own experts (the Climate Authority), then any amount of modelling to rustle up ‘evidence’ to support their position is a waste of everyone’s time. The world is moving so fast that these empty gestures will soon be forgotten, except as a historical footnote.