|
Alone amongst the world's middle-powers, the Australian
government has continued to back the essence, and even
the science, of the Kyoto Protocol without pledging to
sign the document.
Prime Minister John Howard has said the government
will meet Australia's 2012 greenhouse emission target
of 108 per cent of 1990 levels but will not ratify the
controversial document until the United States and the
region's developing nations pledge their support.
Although the fence sitting appears illogical on the
surface - working to meet the protocol's levels while
not actually ratifying the resolution - Australia is
in fact doing a remarkable job of balancing environmental
concerns with practical business sense.
Australian environment minister David Kemp says the
government is not denying the existence of global warming
by refusing to sign on to Kyoto. In fact he says the
government has ample proof that Australia - a country
he says is plagued by variable climate change - will
be hurt by any warming greenhouse gases cause.
"This is why we are committed to achieving our
emission target," he said after the recent Johannesburg
summit. "We are currently heading towards 111 per
cent, and with additional efforts we can get down to
108 per cent."
The minister's optimism was backed in October by a
McLennan Magasank Associate's report on the greenhouse
gas emissions and electricity generation.
The report found that 70 per cent of Australia's emissions
come from the burning of coal to generate electricity.
The authors argued that Australia could meet its emission
goals by simply replacing 10 per cent of the coal-fired
power with renewable forms of energy, such as wind power.
The report also concluded these reductions could be
met without substantially increasing the cost of electricity
or reducing Australia's international competitiveness.
Competitiveness is also behind the government's argument
for not signing on to Kyoto.
The government argues that Australia will lose out
economically if the United States or the region's developing
nations do not join Kyoto.
"It is essential," Kemp says "to bring
the US and developing nations into the system. During
the current decade, developing nation emissions will
exceed those of the developed nations."
Kyoto is doomed to be a paper tiger without the US
onboard. The protocol needs to be ratified by countries
that together account for 55 per cent of worldwide emissions
but so far only has the support of countries responsible
for 36 per cent of the gases. Even the protocol's generous
targets will be impossible to achieve without commitment
from America because it alone accounts for another 36
per cent of the world's greenhouse gases.
Kemp also argues that developing nations have no incentive
to join Kyoto so Australia would ultimately lose resource-based
industry to countries such as Indonesia, China and Malaysia,
which will not be shackled by emission targets.
To back its point, the government has just released
a report from the nation's leading greenhouse modeler,
Warwick McKibben, which concludes Australia would pay
an economic penalty for joining Kyoto.
But government detractors say that not signing the
protocol may have its economic costs as well.
Kyoto supporters have warned that the European Union
may soon begin sanctioning goods produced in "environmentally
unfriendly" countries - a label Australia may earn
if it doesn't sign the agreement.
Opposition leader Simon Crean has also pointed out
that there are economic advantages, such as carbon trading,
for signatory countries. He says a failure to sign simply
retards the environmental development of Australian
businesses, which in the end will have to meet the emission
standards under local regulations.
"Ratification of the Kyoto Protocol is not only
about climate change but about positioning Australian
industry for the future, " says Crean. "The
government's position makes no sense. They have placed
Australia in the absurd position of committing to meet
the Kyoto targets while refusing to ratify the protocol."
The real cost to Australia, however, will be to its
reputation as a champion of all things green.
Environmentalist David Suzuki told the National Press
Club this year that Australia's refusal to sign was
a "humiliating decision" for a country that
should be leading the world to develop sustainable energy.
In the end, Australia's balancing act may make economic
sense but it may also be its lasting shame.
<< top >>
|
