The study released by ClimateWorks today demonstrating that 25% cuts in greenhouse emissions by 2020 are eminently achievable and affordable has increased the pressure on Prime Minister Rudd to deliver serious climate action before this year's election.

But the report missed the opportunity to refresh the climate debate in Australia, bringing it back up the agenda focussed on the much steeper emissions cuts the science demands, the Australian Greens said.

"With the ClimateWorks study today and yesterday's CSIRO climate update, it is clear that Mr Rudd is going to face increasing pressure to deliver serious climate action before the election," Australian Greens Deputy Leader, Senator Christine Milne, said.

"The Greens are ready, willing and able to deliver on serious climate action, and we look forward to reinvigorating the discussions with Minister Wong towards our proposed interim levy on polluters as a first step.

"We have so much evidence now - from ClimateWorks, McKinsey and even the Treasury - that 25% cuts are eminently achievable and affordable. That should be the minimum we aim for.

"There is so much evidence from around the world that the much steeper cuts that scientists tell us we need can bring tremendous social and economic dividends, drive faster innovation and reduce wasted investment.

"But we still have no-one in Australia seemingly willing to go beyond what Mr Rudd has declared is his maximum offer and examine the potential for 40% cuts and more.

"How much more powerful would this report have been if it refreshed the climate agenda by focussing it on the targets we need, rather than on weak political targets?

"What a pity that the ALP influence from the board has prevented ClimateWorks from doing the kind of study Australia really needed instead of replicating the kind of work that has already been done by Treasury, McKinsey and others.

"McKinsey has gone further than Climate Works already, demonstrating that 30% cuts by 2020 are eminently achievable and affordable, and Treasury has demonstrated that the difference in cost between cut of 5% and 25% is vanishingly small.

"The government's CPRS, as it stands, would lock out the option of going harder faster, would encourage the building of new coal fired power stations and would hide its failure with a bonanza of cheap and dodgy offsets from overseas.

"ClimateWorks has helped to demonstrate how short-sighted that approach is. It's time to move on."