Home | Business News | Browse by Publication | A | Arena Magazine

The Howard-Bush coalition's agenda on climate change: if Australia's greenhouse gas emissions are really 'on track' why won't Howard ratify Kyoto?

Article Excerpt
In less than a year, we have seen the release of The Stern Review; poll results from the Lowy Institute putting 'dangerous' climate change at the head of the list of public anxieties; and two more in a series of reports from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). At the same time, the record drought and a series of extreme weather events globally have added their impact on public consciousness both here and internationally.

No surprise then, that with an election looming in late 2007, the Howard Government has sharply changed its rhetoric on global climate change. Pious utterances about reducing greenhouse gas emissions now constantly emerge from the lips of reformed climate change denialists like Minister for Resources Ian McFarlane. Token grants with photo opportunities for MPs are commonplace, and often are just another form of rhetoric.

The government's continued refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, despite this apparent 'sea-change' is therefore puzzling.

Howard's Agenda and the Two Critical Questions

Specifically, there are two puzzles about the Howard Government's stance on 'dangerous' climate change.

The first is that responsible ministers continually boast that the domestic emissions target is 'on track' to meet Australia's negotiated Kyoto target. (In fact, there is considerable controversy about whether Australia is or is not 'on track' to meet its target for 2008-2012. Recent analysis undertaken by the Climate Institute suggests that this is not the case.) Leaving aside whether Australia is 'on track' or not, why does the Howard Government steadfastly refuse to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on global climate change?

The second puzzle concerns the government's continued vocal defence of the export coal industry. The mystery here is that almost all of that industry's emissions occur overseas and are not limited by Australia's Kyoto target, which is applicable only to domestic emissions within Australian territory.

The answer to these puzzles is that Howard's opposition is not just to the Kyoto Protocol 1997 but to its further evolution within the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) and the fundamental principle it embodies. That fundamental principle is abatement of greenhouse gas emissions by the most cost-effective means consistent with the international system of sovereign states. This means applying 'market instruments', such as international emission trading, but the more fundamental commitment is to emissions being effectively priced.

In short, the Howard Government doesn't simply wish to avoid future obligations to reduce Australia's own domestic emissions as the present Protocol evolves. The government's main fear is that other countries will accept tighter emissions targets and pricing of emissions.

Two kinds of pressures are important in explaining the government's policy of sabotaging Kyoto.

The first pressure comes from the export coal industry. To the extent that C[O.sub.2] emissions are priced internationally then consumption of coal, especially in electricity generation, will indeed be reduced, as will its price. That would mean reduced coal export revenues in the future--'reduced', that is, relative to possible future super-profits, not necessarily relative to present levels of exports. Present levels are not likely to rapidly decline any time soon. This is because of the considerable inertia in the operation of existing electricity-generating capacity which is unlikely to be simply scrapped or abandoned except at very high emission prices....

View this article FREE - Now for a Limited Time, try Goliath Business News
Free for 3 Days!