Costing the Earth?
Do you protect the planet or safeguard your prosperity? That is how the climate change debate in Australia has increasingly been framed, as the Rudd government has grappled with its plans for an emissions trading system designed to cut emissions whilst at the same time protecting Australia's status as a mining and energy powerhouse.
Then there are the overlapping and complicated issues of how to get the plan through parliament when you do not have a majority in the upper house, the Senate.
And how to appease green-friendly governments in Europe who have long viewed Australia as something of a "greenhouse ghetto": the country with the highest per capita emissions in the developed world, and a massive exporter of pollution, mainly through thermal coal, the country's number one export commodity (it accounts for around 10-20% of export income).
A "diabolical" policy dilemma is how the Rudd government's climate change advisor, Ross Garnault, memorably described it - and that was before the global economic downturn, and the end of the Australian resources boom.
Last week, I was in Canberra meeting the head of the Minerals Council of Australia, Mitch Hooke, who reckoned that the carbon emissions trading scheme would cost 30,000 jobs in the mining sector alone. Similar concerns were echoed by other big business lobby groups.
Seemingly, the prime minister has listened, and announced that the emissions trading scheme will be delayed for a year.
"The worst global recession since the Great Depression means we must adapt our climate change measures, but not abandon them," said Mr Rudd.
But this will be seen by many as a victory for the mining and minerals sector, and a reminder, if any were needed, of their political clout. (As a historical aside, it is worth remembering that Australia's first industrial policy was drafted by an executive of BHP, the forerunner of BHP Billiton.)
As a sop to environmental groups - namely the Australian Greens, whose support he needs to get the measure through the Senate - Kevin Rudd has said he plans to adopt more ambitious emissions cuts.
Originally, he set a target of 5-15% by 2020, which, by European standards, is on the lower end of the scale. Now, he proposes to aim for deeper cuts of 25% over the next decade, depending on the outcome of the all-important UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December, which will thrash out a post-Kyoto global deal.
But the Greens have already slammed the proposals, saying they are worse than the Rudd government's original scheme. Mitch Hooke at the Minerals Council is also unhappy saying, in effect, that it offers only a stay of execution.
The Liberal Party, meanwhile, is calling this a "humiliating backdown". The leader of the opposition, Malcolm Turnbull, noted: "Only a few months ago Mr Rudd said that any delay in the start of an emissions trading scheme would be reckless and irresponsible both for the economy and the environment."
Kevin Rudd came to power promising to put Australia in the forefront of green diplomacy. His first act as prime minister was to ratify the Kyoto Protocol - a deal, first lauded and then lambasted by the then prime minister John Howard, which actually allowed Australia to increase its emissions, something that is often forgotten.
Though famously sceptical on the subject of climate change, John Howard planned to introduce an emissions trading scheme by 2012. Kevin Rudd's proposals will come into effect in 2011, if he manages to get the legislation through parliament.
So has Kevin Rudd brought more continuity to his approach to global warming than change? Has he protected the Australian economy at the cost of the global environment?
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~59~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Rudd has always been labeled as a 'pragmatic' politician.The word 'pragmatic' seems to have different connotations in different cultural settings. From where i come from, a 'pragmatist' is sometimes understood as an 'opportunist'. So could anyone explain to me, does the word 'pragmatic' actually has any negative connotations in English language ?
Complain about this comment
Protect the planet? We don't even know how to look after ourselves!
BTW: I think Australia's per capita emissions are lower than the USA and Canada. Certainly much lower than the Gulf states.
Complain about this comment
Interesting article.
I agree with the last comment regarding the Gulf states.. In fact, I've seen a lot of hazardous manufacturing during my last visit to Dubai.
John Williams
htpp://johnwilliams.eu
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
To wjburt #4: yes, prosperity is important but not at all cost. If it comes to the choice between dead and unemployed I choose unemployed. That's what I call a no brainer.
Complain about this comment
To Freakontheguitar #5.
Why is it you people are always invoking Death & Calamity into any debat on Climate Change.
No ones going to die if Australia postpones carbon trading. Europe has spent centuries stealing the world's resources, polluting the atmosphere and now that they have comfortable standards of living, they expect everyone else to contribute towards cleaning up the mess while foregoing the same standard of living the rest of the world aspires to.
The world isn't going to die; the world's climate has always been in a state of flux; man will prevail and nothing, I repeat, nothing the Australian government does or does not do will affect the rest of you.
Complain about this comment
#6, #4
Hey Burt, what a mature and considered post:
"Europe has spent centuries stealing the world's resources, polluting the atmosphere and now that they have comfortable standards of living, they expect everyone else to contribute towards cleaning up the mess while foregoing the same standard of living the rest of the world aspires to"
Let's ignore that human induced climate change wasn't widely known about back in the 18th Century. Let's ignore that Australia already has the same living standards as much as Europe (if lacking in some areas) and better standards than other parts of Europe. Let's ignore the many good opportunities that this country has to institute sustainable energy sources that would also provide new industrial jobs. Let's even ignore that climate change will invoke death and calamity (it already has) and it's going to affect the poorest people in the world the worst.
Leaving all that aside, do you have any views on the effects of climate change on Great Barrier Reef, if only because once it's gone the tourist dollar will certainly dry up slightly?
Complain about this comment
Well wjburt #6, there is evidence that greenhouse gases cause climate change, and it also becomes clearer that climate change causes an increase in natural disasters. And even if the human species will not be wiped out, people do die in such disasters. Are their deaths a fair price to pay for our prosperity?
And can the Australian government do anything about this? Not on its own, but possibly together with others.
What we do know is that most other developed countries (including the EU, Canada and many US states) produce less greenhouse gases per capita, and are reducing them faster than Australia is. There is no question of Australia taking the lead or being the moral consience of the world. In fact it has to struggle to catch up.
Oh, and do call me a tree hugger if you wish. I find them much prettier than coal mines.
Complain about this comment
This whole 'anything we do on our own will make no difference' is that it applies to every country in the world. And if every country in the world takes that attitude, nothing changes and our civilisation ends up crashing into the ground. Brilliant. In any case, the reality is that we only have finite energy resources, so we might as well start providing economic incentives for diversification and efficiency, greenhouse effect or no.
Complain about this comment
Honest to blog, capping our carbon emissions doesn't mean we can't turn on the heater while baking a lasagne in the oven, nor does it mean our room won't light up when we flick the switch.
This scheme is really all about having businesses purchase a permit for every tonne of greenhouse gas they emit. It means forcing them to find more environmentally friendly ways to make a profit. Employing low pollution solutions rather than high pollution ones.
I understand why Kevin Rudd has decided to postpone this scheme. It saves the votes, tones down business lobbyists and somewhat helps with the current economical turmoil. Yet those who believe we don't need to do our part and chides those who believe otherwise are just self-centered and ignorant.
Complain about this comment
Please ignore my economical oversight with 'economic'.
Complain about this comment
If the Australian government genuinely believes there is any chance that the global climate is heading toward a catastrophic `tipping point' then there is (surely?) no way that PM Rudd would have delayed his proposed Emissions Trading Scheme? Put differently, it seems the Australian government must currently be convinced of the absence of sound reasons to be alarmed about medium term effects of present levels of carbon emission? The alternative thesis is unthinkable: PM Rudd is willing to risk the future of the planet to win a domestic political argument against the Australian opposition leader, M. Turnbull? As much as I may disagree with PM Rudd, I am certain he is not that reckless!
Unfortunately, the contention that carbon emissions pose an immediate and existential threat has taken such hold in our cultures and attained such institutional weight the politics of the matter is presumptively inertia-bound. An important question, then, is what do our political leaders actually believe? If PM Rudd, for example, were to be frank with the Australian people (as he should, given the massive social-economic restructure implied by an ETS) I suspect he would have to admit he has no idea what the world's climate will actually look like in, say, 2030. But, given the point at which the climate change debate has reached it is no longer acceptable for leaders to rely upon the so-called `scientific consensus on the issue. National leaders must base momentous decisions such as these upon their own understanding of the issues. In any case, PM Rudd's postponing his ETS surely indicates, whatever he actually knows, the PM believes the matter has no present urgency to it.
Complain about this comment
T-Bear2
From a non-politician-stepping-into-a-politician's vantage point, I would say, as much as I want to stand by my conviction, keeping my electorate happy is a primary concern.
But to be fair, Kevin Rudd does care about the planet or else he wouldn't have ratified the Kyoto Protocol and initiated this scheme.
Complain about this comment
Last week, when I first heard that Mr Rudd's government was going to delay introducing their emission targets for 1 year, I thought it a very sensible thing to do.
He's not taking his eye-off the ball; he's just delaying implementation, to give the economy a chance to bounce back.
Much of the criticm of Oz comes from those countries, who have not openly declared a freeze of emissions decrease, but are in fact presently taking an unofficially relaxed attitude to implementation.
The real test comes in 2020 or some other time down the line, when national targets are seen for what they are - realism achieved or political humbug.
Complain about this comment
This is a global issue and should be dealt with in that manner. If the nations would come to agreement and the majority sign on with a designated date to begin it would make more sense and politically individual leaders would not be left out on the limb. There are a number of reasons to change from using coal and oil as energy sources. The problem is being posed as one of infrastructure. Hydrogen provides the possible solution of individual energy production. The problem with individul control and utilization of energy is that the government would need a way to collect the taxes they now get from energy companies. As with most important things, this is not really about technology but rather about who makes the profits and how the governments collect taxes. Politics and power pollute this matter. The goal of the ruling class is that alternative energy will be controlled and owned within the existing commercial and governmental interests. This is not about who owns the probelms, it is about who will own the solutions.
Complain about this comment
Climate change solutions should be viewed as an opportunity, not as a hindrance.
We have a great opportunity hear to capitalise on the weight of majority opinion behind sustainability and use this as a chance to clean up our energy sector and increase efficiency, and also increase the robustness of our economy and reduce our reliance on unclean and non-longterm industries.
Incentives should be also considered, so businesses can also be rewarded for a longer term outlook.
Complain about this comment
4. wjburt: "People expect electricity when they flick a switch; fail to supply that power and the government would be voted out in a flash."
Doesn't Australia receive a hefty dose of sunlight most of the year? Might it be feasible to increase the proportion of electricity generated from sunlight gradually over a period of years? How about wind-generated electricity to provide another portion of Australia's needs?
"Bugger the rest of the world" is a certainly a charming and well-thought-out philosophy based on a high level of personal honor and deep, genuine concern for humanity, but it has a potential downside in practical application in that it depends on the rest of the world bending over and taking it.
Complain about this comment
#2 Satoru
"BTW: I think Australia's per capita emissions are lower than the USA and Canada. Certainly much lower than the Gulf states".
And that means? Oh! I know. It means you're allowed to continue to pollute until you catch up--right?
Complain about this comment
I live in rural NSW, so I see this as part of a total package with links to water management, agriculture, bushfire hazards..relevant for the area I'm in, compared to most urban dwellers
I have 24 PV cells set up on a farm shed which probably gives me a lifetime of green credentials, I don't expect to get any financial return during that lifetime. It's a very large financial outlay even with the (means tested) rebate and the feed in tariffs and you would have to be committed to solar to do likewise. I doubt younger people with mortagages could afford it. Successive Australian Governments, state and federal, have not tackled the financial burden required for property owners to make this investment. Wind power, which I'm also looking into, seems to better organised in rural areas but is obviously not an option for urban areas
The increase in global emissions under Kyoto has not been forgotten, Nick, the NSW Government subsequently enacted some of the most stringent land clearing regulations anywhere in the world. Essentially, regrowth for clearing dates only post 1990, and most landowners here have a total farm plan incorporating both agricultural activities and native vegetation and are planting native trees on old overcleared areas
Comparisons with 'green-friendly governments in Europe' are dubious. Sure, Germany has tackled solar in a way which we should have, but the Australian landscape holds particular challenges not seen in Europe. There have also been a lot of tactics from the EU which can best be described as moving the deckchairs.
Complain about this comment
Nothing is manifested bootless by Almighty Creators repository of attributes. That s why, 71% off-shore of our Planet The Human Earth, pertaining to divine blessings of Oceans - actually impacts on developments of climates, equipoisingly designed wih erection of gigantic Forestry - naturally acts as smartest environmental-shield counterbalancing with 29 % of Lords-Land on-shore.
Let we protect & utilize our natural resources fascinated for us as ruby-&-Coral, within our Oceans along with Forests, as simple as environmental friendly Part-of-Eco-Equation.
The disorganized & jumbled growth of Jungles should be ancient part-of-history when we were Tarzan . Now, we are so smartly-cultivated with ultra-smart technologies, that we can also work-out on smartest planning of our Forests to manage with such as well-planned Road-Mapping of cutting-edge infra-structure developments of our Forests to bring all out of the wood without unnecessary cutting of pointless wood; so that we our CTL (Coal To-Liquid) Plants to turn our vast Coal Reserves into barrels of Oil , our Coal Power Generation Plants and allied Industries having environmental-reservations becomes more environmental-responsive by absorption of excessive greenhouse gases like CO2, within these industrial-Sights we will especially select inside these Forestry on our planet .
However, such an economical GREEN GROWTH Planning also demands mitigation initiative, enabling us to take our honest responsibility campaigning to mobilize all to come forward to foster environmental friendly Plants & coconut & other sea-zonal type of Trees which can be cultivated along Sea Side-by-Side of of our Industrial Port cities.
The above mentioned Cultivated Road-mapping will ever be count as Sustainable International Development leading to creation of a huge number of new job opportunities, too.
Complain about this comment
Nothing is manifested bootless by Almighty Creators repository of attributes. That s why, 71% off-shore of our Planet The Human Earth, pertaining to divine blessings of Oceans - actually impacts on developments of climates, equipoisingly designed wih erection of gigantic Forestry - naturally acts as smartest environmental-shield counterbalancing with 29 % of Lords-Land on-shore.
Let we protect & utilize our natural resources fascinated for us as ruby-&-Coral, within our Oceans along with Forests, as simple as environmental friendly Part-of-Eco-Equation.
The disorganized & jumbled growth of Jungles should be ancient part-of-history when we were Tarzan . Now, we are so smartly-cultivated with ultra-smart technologies, that we can also work-out on smartest planning of our Forests to manage with such as well-planned Road-Mapping of cutting-edge infra-structure developments of our Forests to bring all out of the wood without unnecessary cutting of pointless wood; so that we our CTL (Coal To-Liquid) Plants to turn our vast Coal Reserves into barrels of Oil , our Coal Power Generation Plants and allied Industries having environmental-reservations becomes more environmental-responsive by absorption of excessive greenhouse gases like CO2 . So we can select especially planned Sights for 'SPECIAL' INDUSTRY & PLANTS )having environmental-reservations) inside these Forestry on our planet.
However, such an economical GREEN GROWTH Planning also demands mitigation initiative, enabling us to take our honest responsibility campaigning to mobilize all to come forward to foster environmental friendly Plants & coconut & other sea-zonal type of Trees which can be cultivated along Sea Side-by-Side of of our Industrial Port cities.
The above mentioned Cultivated Road-mapping will ever be count as Sustainable International Development leading to creation of a huge number of new job opportunities, too.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS