The Australian media has largely spruiked the Bali COP (Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change) as a success but this doesn’t at all match the feeling of defeat and despondency that I and many others felt in Bali last Sunday – the day after the meeting finally closed.
While it is a positive step that the COP achieved its primary objective of reaching an agreement on a process to agree on a replacement of the Kyoto Protocol (aka the Bali Roadmap), the fact is that the language of the agreement lacks substance and that even this small step proved extremely difficult to achieve.
With such high levels of public concern about climate change and the newly released IPCC reports, the COPs very modest (much too modest) objective should have been relatively painless – yet in practice it was like extracting teeth. Diplomacy faltered and there was booing, jeering and even tears - this surely does not bode at all well for the much more difficult challenge of actually negotiating emission reduction targets for each industrialised nation by 2009 and setting out what developing countries will be tasked with.
Three issues that will play out over the next two years are of great concern. First the range for emissions reduction targets for industrialised nations (ie 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020) and the global emissions stabilisation goal (10-15 years), both of which were principally advocated by the EU, are woefully inadequate if our objective is to ensure that global temperature increase is constrained to less than two degrees. If there was ever an elephant in the room – this is it… More on this issue soon…
Second, an awful lot of stock is being placed in the idea that in the US the Democrats will beat the Republicans at the next election in early 2009 and that a sound global treaty on climate change will then fall into place. Yet several Americans I spoke to at the COP said it’s 50:50 at this stage - and even if the Democrats do win, it would take a phenomenally brave and visionary President to adopt emission reduction targets anything like what the EU nations are calling for. Add to this the fact that the Democrats record on climate change while in Government is pretty bleak – although that was some time ago now.
Third, while there is an understandable tendency to point the finger at the US Government, hiding behind them are the other laggard nations such as Canada, which objected the inclusion of the 10-15 year stabilisation goal in the main text of the Roadmap and Russia, which similarly objected to the inclusion of reference to the work of the IPCC.Truth is we have yet to see the true colours of Canada, Russia, Japan or Australia for that matter. And, when/if the industrialised nations finally accept their responsibility to lead, what will China and India agree to?
The bottom line is that globally we are frighteningly late in responding to the climate emergency. With each passing day a response that at least mitigates the worst impacts becomes less likely and despite the obvious public will for action, national agendas continue to trump global concerns. The only way forward is greater and greater pressure on politicians and that won’t happen until we all, including the mainstream media, take off the rose-coloured glasses..
Oliver, thanks for those thoughts on the Bali conference. I have two questions you might be able to help me with.
(1) Can you explain how the 25-40% range for developing countries was arrived at? The work referenced in the Bali Action Plan refers to a 10-40% range.
(”Under most equity interpretations, developed countries as a group would need to reduce their emissions significantly by 2020 (10–40% below 1990 levels) and to still lower levels by 2050 (40–95% below 1990 levels) for low to medium stabilization levels (450–550ppm CO2-eq)”
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III, Technical Summary, p90
)
(2) Is there any discussion about converging per capita greenhouse emission targets? This is the simplest and fairest way to share the emission reduction load that I have heard of.
Thanks
Michael
After campaigning on Climate Change for I don’t know how many years, this is astonishing to say the least…. AND convincing!
Robert Carter, near the end of this 40-minute presentation, says:
“There has never in human history been a greater disconnect between
the basic science and what is going on at the moment [at the official
GW conferences etc]. It is absolutely astonishing - the disjoint
between the politics and socioeconomics. .. and the empirical science.”
In many many ways, I hope he’s right.
I can deal with energy descent, but if climate change actually gets as
bad as what some are predicting, then it would be curtains.
Mike.
Pt 1 of 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI
Pt 2 of 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8
Pt 3 of 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXDISLXTaY
Pt 4 of 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno,
I don’t agree with many of the concerns that were raised in the commentary. Rudd / Wong / Garret achieved a considerable amount by at least having everybody agree to further discussions and planning. It must be remembered that the target range of 25% - 40% may not be economically achievable, and this is why Rudd needs to wait for the report due next year. What would be the purpose of setting targets that are not achievable. Targets need to be set that are stretch achievable, else the population will just turn off, and not work toward achieving even modest reductions, and frankly the Government would not be able to force the reductions. Personally I have worked in a modest way to reduce our energy consumption but replacing all light bulbs, reducing water consumption by installing a tank, and purchased a diesel car to assist in a minor way with vehicle polution. With the latter, what really annoys me is the cost of diesel in Melbourne. I note on the internet that the retail cost (per litre) of imported diesel to NZ is NZ$ 1.26 (petrol NZ$1.72), ie. NZ0.40+ cents / litre cheaper than petrol, however in Melbourne Diesel is aorund A$1.48 / litre (A$0.10 dearer than petrol). Unless the federal government assists the general population with achieving reductions, through realistic pricing of energy, then even modest reduction targets will not be reached.
i am fascinated by any conversation around climate change that includes references to the ‘economic viability’ of taking certain actions
it is rarely accompanied by the corresponding question ‘what is the economic viability of NOT taking certain actions?’
which the exception of a handful of luddites, nobody is interested in crippling the global economy - however, if it comes down to a choice between a worldwide recession and the worst case scenario of not taking action, logic will ALWAYS dictate that the recession would have to be the preferred option.
with so much uncertainty about the science at this point in time, the risks of taking significant and immediate action are dwwarfed by the risks of not
Cameron, to a certain level you are correct, however it would be political suicide for a government to just state that a recession, and associated unemployment is required to meet a emmissions reduction figure pulled out of the air by the UN. I would even go so far as say that they may be pushed by a 1975 type backlash. The Feds need to set a stretch target that is achievable without damaging the economy, and that the general public is prepared to work towards. Without the general public on side, even a modest target will not be achieved, and for the general public to be on side they need to see that their life styles will not be dramtically changed (remember last year we sold 1 million new vehicles, and if you now tell the 1 million families that they cannot use their new pride and joy, you better start looking for a new job). Another potential problem is that the Feds cannot spend a large amount on any solutions, as the RBA has already told them to cut spending or interest rates (which obviously would include rents) will be increased, again making taking the Fed Government into dangerous waters. As far as I can see, a stretch target that is both environmentally and economically achievable, with out hurting too much the Mr and Mrs Average, is the only way that a target may be achieved.
Grant, withholding the 30B tax cuts and instead applying those funds to create emission free generation would quite obviously not cause an economic catastrophe.
Using those tax cuts to seed clean generation coupled with matching industry funds (that left industry as the plant owner) can be shown to be almost sufficient as a single plan to meet the 25% to 40% reduction target by 2020. Anything else we do (like the very reasonable actions you have already done for yourself) would nail it.
As such any discussion of the economic inviability of meeting the 2020 targets isn’t really credible. There may of course be a better way than what I suggest that would get us even deeper reductions for the same cost. So I am happy to wait for a considered examination by Garnaut for the best plan. We don’t need random, wasteful thrashing about, we need a considered plan and fortuitously we are going to get one.
The idea we can’t meet the target range without severe pain is really meant to befuddle the public and distract us from the act of planning. The best thinking on the issue is way beyond that kind of quagmire.
In any event we are much more likely to face severe economic pain anyway for entirely different reasons that instead have to do with the global credit binge. (Read “Affluenza” by Clive Hamilton of the Australia Institute for more on this).
Interestingly at http://greens.org.au/media/releases/release.php?release_id=818
I see the following quote:
“Greens candidate for Melbourne, industrial lawyer Adam Bandt, said: “I campaigned on three main issues: using public funds for urgent action on climate change instead of tax cuts, … ”
I think this is a fantastic idea.
The only problem with this quote is this is not Greens policy at all. Maybe Adam believed it and maybe he was bravely determined to go it alone against the party line. If you read Green actions you see something very different to what Adam says.
The Greens policy is to use the tax cuts for services. The only climate linked element in the policy for the four services uses of the tax cuts is public transport.
If we ignore Adam’s linking of tax cuts to climate action for a moment and also generously include the EASI stuff, then we need to remember EASI is voluntary grants and requires ordinary folk apply to actually take up the initiative. This means EASI is not urgent action either. Indeed its questionable it will make a substantial dent since to make a dent assumes widespread takeup. So EASI doesn’t match Adam’s quote on two strikes.
What we are left with is a startling inconsistency between Adam’s quote and the Greens action plan.
I for one would let out a mighty cheer if the Greens could produce policies that matched the very encouraging words from Adam.
Here’s hoping …
Further to my previous on setting achievable targets, I read an interesting article in one of the major motor magazines, which pointed out some emmission facts.
a. Australian motor vehicles each put out an average of 2 tonnes of emmissions / year
b. There are approx 10 - 14 million motor vehicles in Australia
c. 5 tonnes of emmissions are put out during the building of each new motor vehicle
d. Australian purchase 1+ million new motor vehicles per year.
Now if we put all the above together, there 5+ million tonnes of emmisions put out for the new cars we purchase each year, and there are approx 20+ million tones of emmissions each year for driving. To me, these figures indicate that to just counter balance the motor vehicle out put, industry would need to save in excess of 25+ million tonnes of emmisions each year.
Personally I don’t think that any arbitary reduction figure set by the government, could have a hope in hell of being achieved.
What we should be possibly be aiming at is to try to hold our existing emmission levels for the next 10 years, then review to see the results.
So should we just ignore the science, Grant?
If we do as you say, we would basically kiss goodbye any chance of avoiding runaway climate change, and welcome in an era of global disruption unlike anything known since human civilisation began.
Anyway, there are plenty of options for reducing emissions dramatically that have been outlined here and elsewhere. We just need to take the bull by the horns and do it.
Can I suggest you look at the latest update of Lester Brown’s groundbreaking Plan B. It’s called Plan B 3.0 and you can download the whole thing here.
He sets out a plan for reducing global emissions by 80% by 2020, remarkably enough. This is technically completely achievable. We just need to decide whether we want to do it or not…