So, finally, both the Government and Opposition have come to the party on what the rest of the world agreed to at Rio 15 years ago – that developed and developing countries should have differentiated responsibilities in any international climate agreement.
It simply stands to reason that those of us lucky enough to have become rich on the back of centuries of pollution should act faster than those who are still dragging themselves out of poverty and polluting, per capita, far less than we are. We have both a greater responsibility and a greater capacity to act. Let’s do it.
Sadly, that’s not the outcome of Mr Howard and Mr Rudd’s furious agreement. Both of them are using it to play political games in the context of an election campaign, trying to score points while refusing to engage with the live issue – how much and how fast should we be cutting emissions?
What leadership can either party take to Bali when neither of them has set out how much climate change they are willing to risk, whether it be 2C, 3C or as much as 6C warming? Without setting that out, they can’t determine what kind of short term cuts they believe are necessary. And until they do that, they will be negotiating in a vacuum.
The fundamental question is, will either Mr Howard or Mr Rudd ratify a new treaty which sets out binding targets designed to achieve 30% cuts below 1990 levels by 2020 and 60-80% cuts in global emissions by 2050, as the science tells us is necessary to avoid 2C warming and the runaway climate change that is projected to follow?
Alexander Downer made something of a fool of himself on Fran Kelly’s Radio National breakfast this morning, attempting to pretend that there was a difference between the two parties’ positions on differentiated responsibilities for developed and developing nations. But even more so, his claim that Peter Garrett’s clear statement of that position would undermine Australia’s negotiating position at Bali. If Mr Downer genuinely wants to take a strong negotiating position to the Bali conference, he can only do so by showing leadership and taking on binding commitments now. Instead, Mr Downer is repeating the offensive lie that developing nations are refusing to reduce their emissions, when China and others have signed up to the Kyoto process and have set more stringent targets for renewable energy and vehicle fuel efficiency than Australia currently has.
Kevin Rudd is right that the biggest block of all to getting developing countries signed up to binding commitments has been the refusal of the Howard and Bush Administrations to take leadership and accept binding commitments now.
Australia under Prime Minister Howard has taken a spoiler role at every turn in the international negotiation processes, pushing for weaker targets, more loopholes and weaker enforcement. If anything, he is as responsible for Kyoto’s weaknesses as anyone on the planet. It is hard to believe anything he says now on international negotiations. ON the other hand, Mr Rudd has given no indication that he is willing to take the kind of action necessary to limit global warming to 2C.
Instead of furiously agreeing about an issue the world settled 15 years ago, Mr Howard and Mr Rudd need to tell Australian voters what kind of short term targets they will be negotiating towards at Bali and what kind of action they will take domestically to reduce emissions now and show leadership on the global stage.
Only then will we be having a real climate action debate in Australia.
UPDATE
Labor have decided to bury the confusing Kyoto story by announcing a 20% MRET by 2020, and that is all renewable energy, not ‘clean energy’ including coal and nuclear, as defined by the Howard Government.
That is unexpectedly almost as good as ours! If indeed Labor do win and take Government, and if indeed they do introduce this target (and we will pressure them to do so, should we achieve balance of power), this must surely rank as one of the most significant shifts in climate policy this country has seen in many years.
Of course, we’d prefer them to go as far as our 25% target, but this is a very strong move.
Brilliant post, Senator Milne. Really shows how afraid of commitment the two lumbering giants are. If only we could get a Green at the Bali table we would see Australia commit to a decent target which we can push our industries and cities to meet.
Hooray for the ALP’s announcement on renewable energy. It’s definitely a step in the right direction and now it’s up to Turnbull to leak a story about how he pushed for 25% renewables in Cabinet.
Sadly, Rudd is steadily becoming as disappointing as Howard is offensive. What did we do to deserve this.
It is becoming very clear that no one in this country is taking a complete solution view to Australia’s Carbon compulsion. We know how much power needs to be generated and we know how much motive fuel we need. So what is the mix of solutions, how much will that cost and how will it be financed. How long will it take to be implemented, and when do we get started. Instead we have people dreaming up a whole new false economy built around trading in avoidance.
2008 will see a new era of street marches and loud public campaigns for clear affirmative action on all environment matters regardless of who wins this election.
Good on Labor for finally announcing a policy that will have a material effect on climate change. At last they have come up with something more than just 2050 targets. This brings them up from 0.5 to about 2.5 out of 10 in my opinion, so they have a way to go yet.
The reason Downer, Howard & co are so lame on climate change is that they actually don’t know anything about. Their years of denial and neglect have left them largely ignorant about the scientific reality of climate change and what to do about it.
I have Liberal leaflt on climate chane that has a message from Downer. All the policy settings in the leaflet are subterfuge. No targets, lots of weasel words, and more undermining of Kyoto. They just don’t get it.
Hopefully the Australian public wont be fooled by the coalitions attempt to pretend they will do something about climate change rather than just propping up the coal industry.
Peter Campbell,
Helen Coonan is even worse on telecommunications and I.T. It’s obvious to anyone in the industry that she is just mouthing soundbites and tossing out buzzwords without really understanding it.
Congratulations to the Greens for providing a framework for discussion which has helped the ALP reach this conclusion. It’s only the relentless criticism from more informed voices which has brought it on. Now we just need a Green balance of power to ensure they deliver on it!
Gandhi, I agree about Coonan. I work in IT and have formed the opinion that Coonan is clueless on the subject. It really is a weird system when people end up in charge of portfolios and departments they know nothing about. No surprise then we are lagging in broadband speed and uptake, still exporting IT jobs, and not realising the huge export opportunities that IT software and services offer. If Ireland can do it so can we. But only with the right leadership and vision.
Peter C,
If you do not know dolarmite from granite, if you cannot drive a dump truck or excavator, or if you cannot wield a chain saw, then the is no place for you in Howard land. You are better off somewhere else.
Australia requires reduction of emission to meet Kyoto target for its own sake. China and India will also act today or tomorrow if they want to survive.Australian policy makers must not use developing world as an excuse for not ratifying Kyoto protocol.Look at the continued draught in some regions.Sudden storms at others.These will not changee until Austrlians takke actions to reduce emissions. There must be aclear vision for reducing use of fossil fuels for power generation, more and more CNG usgae will reduce automobile emissions. Public tranport system requires massive investment. The vast country can easily afford rapid expansion of solar and wind energy.
[...] with their political position or not, it is obvious that the entries on the Greensblog are actually addressing the issue, not the superficial horserace and pointscoring journalism that’s taking place [...]
Maybe the 25% by 2020 by the Greens is way too low if the ALP can come up with 20% by 2020!
While about 16 times the current target, it about on par with a lot of Europe countries and US states but hardly world best practise.
Maybe we should have had 25% by 2015! Can be done but we might have to let go of Alcoa and definately no new coal power stations.
By the way, a ’scientific’ target (thanks for the expression Turnbull :-() would be 100% a few decades ago. This is, of course, impossible. We will have to settle on 100% ASAP.
Whatever ASAP is, it’ll be a lot easier than getting people on bicycles!