On the weekend Lenore Taylor in her regular spot in the Australian Financial Review pointed out that there will be no less than seven international talkfests between now and the end of the year on climate change. The pinnacle of all this activity will be the UN talks in Bali during the first two weeks in December which will launch the negotiations under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to decide what the world is going to do after the Kyoto Protocol runs its course in 2012.
The APEC meeting next week is the third of the preliminary skirmishes which will try to determine the shape and nature of what is decided at Bali.
The shorter Howard is that the world should set ‘aspirational’ (non-binding) emission reduction goals, that each country should set its own target and timetable according to its circumstances and that these efforts should then be aggregated.
I think it’s very important that you understand that each country will set its own timetable. See the essence of the approach I adopt is that you aggregate the individual contributions of different countries with different circumstances. We have our own proposal for an emissions trading system to come into operation in 2012. We will set an Australian target next year after we have all the advice and all the evidence that we need to soundly base that target and I think other countries will do the same.
That was from his doorstop interview at the Lowy Institute on Monday.
Here are some extracts from his speech:
The key task in Sydney is to give political direction to the shape of a future framework for climate change action that is truly global.
At APEC, we should strive to find agreement on principles for international action that genuinely address the problem, whilst also allowing countries such as China and Indonesia to continue to grow and prosper.
These principles are comprehensiveness, flexibility and respect for national circumstance, the importance of technological responses, and finally the importance of forests and land use.
Beyond agreement on principles, Howard wants practical stuff like improving energy efficiency, sharing specialist knowledge, the “continued use of fossil fuels, as well as the potential of renewable energy sources and the proven contribution that can be made by nuclear power.” And improved forestry and land use management practices.
Howard sees the APEC consensus as providing:
a political momentum to both the US-led initiative to bring together major economies later in September and to the United Nations Conference in Bali in December.
You will note that there are only three meetings on Howard’s agenda. Or maybe we aren’t among the 150 countries currently meeting in Vienna. In Vienna there will actually be two meetings, one about binding targets for developed countries, the other “non-negotiations� about what developing countries might do.
APEC is the third of the meetings, with 21 of the 191 nations involved in the UNFCCC, albeit some of the biggest polluters.
Fourth comes a high-level meeting in New York called by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. That meeting will be a few days before Bush’s bash.
Then in November the Indonesians are hosting a ministerial get-together before the Bali talks in December.
Crikey says:
Head of The Australia Institute Clive Hamilton told Crikey, “Howard will still hope to get some domestic traction on the issue, but the Sydney Declaration will be no more than a wry footnote in the history of international climate change negotiations.”
“The Prime Minister’s grand plan for APEC has been seriously deflated over the last two or three months as it has confronted the realities of international climate politics,” says Hamilton. “The big boys — China, India, US and, behind the scenes, Europe, have made it clear that Australia is a bit player.”
Lenore Taylor reminds us of the fictional character Bridget Jones who was always going to lose weight, drink less and smoke less. Each day she faithfully recorded her progress, it’s just that there wasn’t any. Taylor says that some wags in the environment movement reckon Howard’s “aspirational targets� are in fact “Bridget Jones� targets.
Presumably there will be an election before the Bali talks. Howard may well impress his domestic constituency and perhaps some of the developing countries in Asia. One would hope though that they would be imbued with a greater sense of urgency than Howard.
Just last week via Quiggin we now have the Sterner Review (pdf) of the Stern Review (actually Thomas Sterner and U. Martin Persson, it’s not a joke!). Via Climate Progress we are told that Sterner and Persson find that in Stern:
nonmarket damages from climate change are probably underestimated
To them the economics of climate mitigation suggest that we should consider aiming for a target of less than 450 ppm CO2 equivalents which Stern considered unrealistic.
James Hansen and others published a paper in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society recently looking at sea level rise, which they think may reach several metres this century. I haven’t read the full paper yet but the article in The Independent ends:
It is not possible to assess the dangerous level of man-made greenhouse gases.
“However, it is much lower than has commonly been assumed. If we have not already passed the dangerous level, the energy infrastructure in place ensures that we will pass it within several decades,” the scientists say in their findings.
“We conclude that a feasible strategy for planetary rescue almost surely requires a means of extracting [greenhouse gases] from the air.”
In the light of this waffling on about aspirational goals seems a bit pathetic.
If every country in the world decided to set its own non-binding targets we’d find ourselves broiling quite soon. It’s absolutely pathetic that Howard trots out the latest inaction plan as if his cautious and measured approaches will save the world. Wake up, PM, we need something done right now. We can’t wait until 2012 to start a domestic emissions trading scheme when the IPCC is saying we’ve got about 5 years to make serious changes or else we’re in trouble.
And what’s with this government throwing “aspirational”, “practical” and “pragmatic” in front of every word? It’s almost as though any idea can do with an upgrade, practical reconciliation, aspirational nationalism, the list goes on.
Re the Sterner Review, quite apart from the economics there is a very big actuarial elephant in the room when considering whether to aim for stabilising atmospheric GHG concentrations at 450ppm CO2 equivalent or less, or 550ppm (which is Stern’s “realistic” target). The former target entails a roughly even chance of a 2 degree Celsius global warming (possible higher or lower, whilst the latter entails a roughly even chance of a 3 degree warming.
The report Avoiding Catastrophe by the Carbon Equity Project, basing itself on current state of the art climate science, makes clear that whilst the effects of a 2 degree warming will be bad enough (and some scientists argue that even this degree of warming should be avoided), a 3 degree warming will be much worse. The truly worrying figure is that whereas a 2 degree increase in global average temperatures would entail a 3 per cent risk of runaway global warming, a 3 degree increase in GAT would raise the likelihood of runaway warming to 24 per cent.
It’s also worth noting that once non-carbon GHGs are factored in, we are already at 430ppm CO2 equivalent.
The idea that Australia will be able to set its own carbon reduction targets, in a world where the USA, Europe, and Japan will be signing up for very large reductions, is absolutely ludicrous.
It’s an invitation for slapping massive carbon tariffs on us.
I’s like to know who suggested Howard use the term “aspirational”. Was it Frank Luntz?
On a quick look, that’s an interesting report, Paul. It puts the risks and options more clearly in graphic form than I’ve seen elsewhere. I’ve seen worse odds from reputable sources, though.
Hansen has been focussing on sea level rise and ice sheet disintegration.. He’s been looking at the paleo record because it all happens too slowly to develop models from real time observations.
The two points he’s been making are that it can happen faster than people have been assuming, and that at the plus 2-3C mark if we go back 3 million years the sea level was about 25 metres higher.
When you consider that 20K years ago the sea was 120-130m lower when the temperature was 5-6C lower and that complete deglaciation would occur with a warming of about 4C giving a sea level of 80m higher, it seems foolhardy to base mitigation strategies on a 3C rise.
Another point that Hansen is making is that non-CO2 climate forcing gases are probably more important than previously thought and easier to deal with.
Good point, Robert.
silkworm, I don’t know, but ‘aspirational’ is clearly visionary, whereas anything Labor might aspire to is ideological. It is written in stone in the very nature of things.
I should have mentioned that Frank Luntz is in Australia at the moment giving advice to Sky News on setting up a debate between Howard and Rudd using something similar to the “worm” used ten years ago with Howard and Keating. Luntz was responsible for the Bush administration adopting the term “climate change” over “global warming”.
“Aspirational” is a feel-good term that allows a person to feel good about thinking of doing good rather than actually doing it.
If you believe the doomsday versions of AGW outcomes then I have one word for you:
CHINA
With no foreseeable slow down in their growth then, according the doomsayers, we are rogered.
What Australia, or the rest of the western world for that matter does in the next 50 years won’t make an iota of difference to global CO2 output, if you beleive the cuts that are required.
That’s if you believe in it. And if it’s that important, i.e. the end of the world as we know it, the West should do two things - virtually shut down our economies and take military action against China and India.
We will look back in 20 or more years and see nothing has been done.
Kyoto was an unmitigated failure and so will be any future agreements.
The world can’t sort out global trade properly, which has benefits for all, how do you dreamers think they are going to go on AGW.
The Lowy Institute poll released today shows that:
Of all external threats to Australians, climate change causes the most concern, with 55% ‘very worried’ about it. Climate change ranks higher than the threats of ‘unfriendly
countries developing nuclear weapons’ (50% ‘very worried’ about it), ‘Islamic
fundamentalism’ (39%) and ‘international terrorism’ (38%). As a foreign policy goal,
‘tackling climate change’ ranked equal highest in importance f or those surveyed (75%
thinking it a ‘very important’ goal) together with ‘protecting the jobs of Australian workers’, and ahead of ‘combating international terrorism’ (65%). Asked how conv nced they were about certain methods of reducing carbon emissions, 65% responded that ‘renewable energy like wind, solar and geothermal’ was very convincing, and f avoured far above other methods proposed, including ‘nuclear energy’ (19% very convinced) and ‘clean coal where emissions are stored underground’ (15%).
None of that looks like good news for Howard to me.
suz, Allan Gyngell was talking about the Lowy Institute poll on The World Today today. I guess it depends on whether people can see that Howard is off the pace.
Today in Crikey Clive Hamilton gave Howard both barrels in a piece entitled Howard’s Kyoto Alternative will have Dire Economic Consequences. He reckons Kyoto and the UNFCCC is inevitably where the action is.
Howard is fond of saying that Kyoto was a failure. Hamilton points out that Howard’s ‘pledge and review’ system was tried in the original UNFCCC (arising out of Rio). It didn’t work, hence Kyoto.
The US moved at the G8 to re-enter the UNFCCC framework. Howard will be left stranded. Sooner or later we will have to integrate with the European carbon trading system and when we do our targets will have to line up or carbon credits will be incorrectly priced.
So in short, Howard’s denigration of Kyoto, the UN and the EU will leave us out in the cold, or having to integrate in a mendicant position.
Don’t you mean “leave us out in the warm“?
You should have added India, Indonesia and Brazil, Razor.
India and China have made it manifestly clear that they won’t accept limitations on their emissions, and frankly it as a worry. But India says specifically that they have no intention of being dudded the way they were in trade. They are expecting the developed world to make a real effort before they come to the table. Angela Merkel, when she was establishing the EU stance and preparing for G8 clearly understood that.
Back in the beginning of this century James Hansen plotted what he called an ‘alternative scenario’ to stabilise the climate. In the paper I linked to in the post he says:
We were warned. Now he says:
It’s not pleasant, and probably expensive, but he feels as a scientist that it is time for plain speaking.
Zarquon, the original article in Crikey had a very appropriate illustration. I think this link may take you there to at least the first part of the article.
I haven’t done uploading pics to comments yet. I think I can see tha track you go down, but it’ll have to await another day.
The Fin Review has an article today with some points relevant to this post. First up, there’s a story around the traps that Bush might not show. Chinese President Hu Jintao, by contrast, is planning a week-long state visit.
On climate, China has made it clear that they will support the Kyoto Protocol approach. This is to be expected, because they like to be seen as good citizens in world forums.
China, it seems, is going to bring a new proposal to APEC about sustainable forest management. This could be all to the good, depending on the details of their proposal, because China would be a large user of imported forest products.
But in what the Fin terms a “setback for summit climate agenda”, the Indonesians have invited the finance ministers of the 20 largest economies (the G20) to the Bali meeting. This is a really sensible idea, because in spite of the importance of the Bali meeting countries will be represented by their environment ministers, who simply don’t rank in their home governments and are often gazumped by their money men when they get home.
Brian
“On climate, China has made it clear that they will support the Kyoto Protocol approach.”
As well they might, Kyoto placed no restriction on “developing nations” including China. Im sure you would see the same argument used this time as well. Mankind will just have to adapt as it has done in the past. The poorest will suffer, the same as always, and spending a poultice of money on conferences and so forth will do nothing.
mole, Angela Merkel has been telling the Chinese that emissions should be worked on a per capita basis.
What could be fairer than that? But apparently the Chinese weren’t impressed.
BTW Bush says he’s coming.
Just as an update on APEC, Rudd has lifted the bar to an unattainable height, saying that Australia must ratify Kyoto and APEC must adopt targets for the reduction of emissions. If they don’t APEC is waste of time.
Howard has lowered the bar, saying that the focus will be on deforestation and forest management, plus energy intensity, by which he no doubt means savings in energy consumption as well as greater efficiency in energy production
The aspirational goals seem to have evaporated. When you think about it, there is no reason why China, the US, Russia, Japan and Canada would reveal their positions until the real deal at Bali in December.
But the most interesting comment has come from Malaysia:
Amen to that!
Brian, precisely what commitments has Malaysia made to managing climate change? Committed themselves to stopping their businessmen from raping the forests of Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, Cambodia and Myanmar, have they? That would be nice.
Talk is cheap coming from that quarter.
GregM, I couldn’t agree more about Malaysia and logging. The world emissions flow chart shows that deforestation accounts for about 18% of total emissions. Afforestation and reaforestation are negligible in comparison.
I think we need to be aiming at zero net from this sector in the next few decades.
The whole climate change debate has literally become hot air. James Lovelock’s modeling (and he was the person whose work began the study of climate change)is being studiously not discussed by the media and politicians. It is too frightening. He simple says it is now too late. He advocated going nuclear as a matter of the greatest urgency over ten years ago. He didn’t like nuclear, he believed we were so close to the tipping point on climate change that going nuclear as fast as possible was the only way to avoid disaster. What the nuclear advocates don’t want to mention was that he also advocated that the nations of the world make an equal investment into fusion research and we prayed that we could make it work and then get off nuclear as fast as possible. That option is no longer possible. The Earth’s permafrost has begun to melt. This is irreversible and will increasingly release so much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that any anti warming steps humanity might make are now irrelevant. We might as well save the money and start planning for our individual survival.
Mike, I haven’t studied the history of the study of climate change, or the biography of James Lovelock, but I seriously doubt that he was a prime mover or on the ground floor of climate modelling. I’ve heard him talk to Phillip Adams a couple of times about his career. One of his early inventions was the Electron capture detector which led to the discovery of the ozone hole. As I recall it, Lovelock was curious about weather people referring to a “haze” that he had not recalled in his youth. So he decided to investigate.
Then when he was working on instrumentation for NASA he told them that it was a silly idea to try to apprehend bugs directly on Mars. They demanded that he come up with a better idea and he came up with looking at the atmosphere:
In other words with life we’d expect a chemically dynamic and unstable atmosphere. This set him on the track of the Gaia hypothesis, which he later developed into a theory.
He’s a smart bloke and I’d never write his judgement off. I suspect we are going to have to take CO2 out of the atmosphere at some stage and you’ll be pleased to know that at LP we’ve been thinking of ways to do it.
Bloody depressing…
How is the ‘GHG removal’ technology going? Can I suggest some serious R&D money be put into that one.
LE, there was an article the other day about Lovelock’s idea of putting pipes in the ocean to pump up cold water to increase the growth of algae (the old bugger isn’t going to just lie down and let it all happen) which mentions some other ideas of geo-engineering.
I’d agree with the comment though that we shouldn’t use those possibilities as an excuse for not reducing emissions.
From memory the IPCC 4 suggested that emissions world-wide should peak by 2015. Nothing anyone with any responsibility for policy at a nation state level is talking about anything that will come within cooee of that as far as I can see.
During the next 10 years I’m tipping that the world will wake in fright and realise the full seriousness of this thing. Or else the anti-alarmist will be proved right and we can do it all in a canter at our leisure. Obviously all positions in between are open too, but my money is on the first-mentioned.