To recap, in recent days we’ve had Garrett first of all saying as reported by the ABC
The Federal Opposition says it is willing to commit to a new international greenhouse gas emissions target, even if big polluters like China and the United States do not sign up.
He was really just arguing for a commitment to the Kyoto process and attacking Howard for not signing. He did include the US and I’m not sure that was smart. We blogged about it here.
Howard attacked, saying that Labor was irresponsible and their approach would cost jobs.
Rudd and Garrett decided that Garrett would issue a “clarifying statement” saying that the developing countries must make commitments for Labor to sign, which sounded like a backflip, but Garrett said it was what he meant all along. Howard saw this as a capitulation. Just about everyone is thoroughly confused and last night on PM John Connor from the Climate Institute declared the two parties to be as one on the issue of developing countries, the one difference being on signing Kyoto.
This raises the question as to whether or not we have policy differentiation. I’d suggest we do, but in the context of the international scene both are inadequate.
On the whole kerfuffle Lenore Taylor in the AFR yesterday says:
But on Monday night, Labor had the wobbles. It issued a statement saying it would require “appropriate developing country commitments”. This is not a complete backflip, since under Labor these “appropriate commitments” would not have to be specific reduction targets, and could instead be “aspirational” targets or promises to take on specific targets further down the track.
But it was a deliberate blurring of the differences between the parties, or at least an attempt to bury them under an eye-glazing confusion of detail (Emphasis added).
Labor has left itself wriggle room, so that Garrett can truthfully claim their policy hasn’t changed.
I think the two sides are still on different narratives. Labor is on the Kyoto, Bali, UNFCCC train. In this regard the industrialised nations have already decided on definite targets, pro tem in anticipation of the Bali meeting. As I reported in the last APEC post, at the UN sponsored meeting in Vienna:
Industrial nations reached consensus on Friday [31 August] to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020.
I got that from The People’s Daily. It’s in advance of our saintly Greens, who are asking for 25%.
Howard is still in his APEC imaginary, where the only targets for anyone are “aspirational” ie. voluntary, where Kyoto is TEH BADNESS and the world needs an entirely new approach, one that will allow Australia to continue to increase its emissions to 2020 at a rate indistinguishable from ‘business-as-usual’.
If the people of Australia in their wisdom re-elect the Howard Government and Bush and Howard cause trouble at Bali, it is possible that the EU may decide to resort to trade sanctions to concentrate the mind. This has been talked about since 2002 at least and I have heard talk about it again recently. An article from November 2004 just after Bush’s re-election explains the possibility.
More likely, though, the nations of the world would just wait for Howard and Bush to depart the scene. We are the more likely targets, though, because of our long record of recalcitrance, our spurious reasons for insisting on an increase at Kyoto (Guy Pearse goes into this in detail), and our particular habit of sledging the Europeans.
Curiously in Bush’s climate change bash in September there was furious agreement, as reported by the BBC, that everyone would have to come on board:
Delegates agreed that developing countries would also have to meet targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, as well as rich countries.
If you google patiently and find the real beast named the First Major Economies Meeting on Energy Security and Climate Change (that’s right, the first meeting decided there would be more, the second to follow Bali) and click through to the Chairman’s Summary, apart from an aversion for long term targets that are more than aspirational, the essence seems to be captured in this sentence:
Speakers underlined their commitment to contribute to global efforts under the UNFCCC, reflecting their national circumstances and in line with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.
In other words, everyone makes up their own targets.
They do embrace “mandatory binding reductions for short- and medium-term by developed countries”, however, these being necessary, as the BBC report said, to enable “a global market [to] be formed to cap and trade carbon dioxide emissions.
Our Reps at the meeting were Downer and Turnbull. This is what Turnbull told Fran Kelly from New York:
It is unlikely, I think, that the major developing economies like China and India would accept binding targets in the sense that we talk about them in Australia.
Dead set right. This is what he said yesterday:
Well a post-2012 agreement that did not involve commitments from developing countries, the major emitters in the developing world to cut their emissions would be environmentally ineffective.
You see, we’ve got to try and achieve two things here. Firstly we’ve got to effect a massive reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. You can not do that without big cuts right across the board, including from the developing world.
This is promising, the nuances don’t matter all that much, Turnbull is on the Kyoto train. The problem is that Howard is not and we don’t know who will be environment minister if the coalition win. In fact after the Kyoto Cabinet leak shenanigans there is a good chance he won’t be. Also in the last 24 hours, I’ve seen a report that the bush is full of AGW denialists who either say it’s just cyclical or it’s due to sunspots, or something. Their views are definitely represented in Cabinet.
Nevertheless all this has to be seen in the framework of the context of the UN process. John Hay, a spokesman for UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, said on PM that the December Bali meeting only had to establish a timeline and a framework, the decisions for post-2012 would be finalised in 2009 (post Bush and Howard), but there was great urgency and deep cuts were necessary:
Well, it is quite obvious that we need massive emission cuts. Globally at least 50 per cent emission reductions by 2050. That is what the IPCC is telling us. It is also quite clear that in order to achieve this target, that industrialised countries must take the lead by agreeing to some, cuts in the order of 80 per cent, between 60 and 80 per cent by the year 2050.
Speaking of leading, the developing countries are going to avoid mandatory commitments until they see the graphs of CO2 levels in developing countries trending down. After Labor’s 20% MRET announcement (pdf) the Climate Institute’s pollute-o-meter has knocked only 3% off Labor’s scorecard. That is under Labor’s policies pollution will now grow by 15.1% by 2020 as against 20.8% for the Coalition. This is a far cry from the 25 to 40% reductions talked about in Vienna.
If you were a hard marker, you’d have a ‘fail’ on both of them.
There are two extreme views of the September Bush meeting. One is that it was an irrelevance, designed for Bush to play to the domestic audience. The second is that it is the very model of a proper approach to the whole problem, and something like that grouping should replace Kyoto entirely. The latter view was put forward recently by two British academics.
Their argument is that Kyoto tries to do too much too soon, that markets (as in cap and trade) are built from below, from within individual states, rather than imposed from above, that the great unwashed, the majority of the 170 Kyoto signatories are simply in the way and more would be achieved by the top 20 polluters who do 80% of the polluting getting together and working out what to do.
The Bush meeting included the top 16 polluters. But I can promise you that the Least Developed Countries after their experience in the WTO will not see themselves as represented by the likes of India, China and Brazil, and will absolutely not put up with sitting outside the door of the infamous ‘Green Room’ (25-30 ‘representative’ countries) to hear what the WTO consensus will be.
If the UN process adopts mandatory cuts of 25-40% by 2020 for developed countries with appropriate and flexible commitments from developing countries, they will have done well. And Australia would be left scrambling to restore some international respectability to it’s effort, which is currently a bad joke.
I can’t believe the response when Howard says Labor’s climate policies will cost jobs. What exactly does our Dear Leader expect will happen when the EU slaps carbon taxes on our products because we haven’t signed Kyoto.
Are there any journos paying attention out there or are they more interested in reporting the petty “he said she said” politicking?
That we’ll sell them in China, India, Japan, South Korea, the United States, South America and anywhere else that’s not the EU. Our trading relationships have moved on since the 1950s and as every year passes the EU becomes less significant as a trading partner and of course it was never justified in its self-appointed role as moral compass for the rest of the world.
Of course, moral purists as they are, they’ll have slapped the same taxes on the US for not ratifying Kyoto and the US will, rather than face the shame of European censure for its turpitude will then meekly ratify Kyoto, or not. More likely slap they’d their own taxes on the EU in retaliation.
GregM: in a nutshell, you’re assuming that a Republican (other than John McCain) will win the White House in 2008.
If a Democrat wins, the USA will be back in the game. If Australia won’t sign up for binding targets it will find itself friendless, and the possibility of tariff retaliation becomes very real.
GregM, I think you’d be surprised at how much trade we have with the EU27. It’s thereabouts with our other large markets. When sanctions are applied they have a habit of hitting where it really hurts.
They’ll be selective and strategic about it if they do it, and may not target the US even if the Republicans win.
Canada is also vulnerable.
Yes, brokenleftleg, Howard’s current woeful climate change and energy policy settings are costing us jobs in the renewable energy sector, and soon for all our carbon intensive exports, when the rest of the world imposes sanctions for our intransigence in not ratifying Kyoto (along with US) and for not taking any real action to address climate change.
Howard is still valiantly trying to protect the coal industry and exports, and is compromising (completely blocking actually) Australia’s transition to a low carbon economy.
GregM, this isn’t just about Europe. It is a global problem, and currently Australia is very much outside the boat pissing in, having actively sabotaged the Kyoto protocol and still refusing to ratify it.
Its obvious to all concerned – except the coalition and a few wingnuts – that we need to ratify Kyoto and participate with good faith in the next round of international negotiations for a post Kyoto agreement to tackle climate change.
Howard’s “aspirational targets” are a load of hot air.
Robert, I’m not expecting that there will be a Howard (or any other Lib) government in 2008, so I expect that we will have already ratified Kyoto long before there is a change of administration in the United States. Even so I would not be too sure that under their system of government, even with a change of administration, they would ratify Kyoto. After all Bill Clinton signed it but didn’t bother putting it before their Senate because he knew that it didn’t have a chance of being ratified, and that wasn’t just because of Republican opposition.
My point was that EU trade threats are paper tigers when the rest of the world is clamouring for the goods we have to sell. And not having friends in Europe is not being friendless. If you look at the globe you’ll see that there is more on it than just Australia and the western extension of the Eurasian landmass.
Then there is the point that Australia, though it hasn’t ratified Kyoto, is on target to meet the target set for it under that treaty, wheras much of Europe is not. Should we expect the EU, moral exemplars that they are, to apply to tariffs on themselves, or their constituent parts for being in breach of their treaty obligations? I’d like to see that!
I agree with you Peterc. We should be acting because of the need to act. Not because someone else wants us to and also not necessarily according to their model, which they are failing to live up to.
Brian, the EU already maintains a tariff wall against Australian agricultural exports through CAP. Our mineral and energy exports are primarily to Asia. Their exports to us are twice our exports to them. There are plenty of emerging substitute markets in the current bouyant world economy. Economically they are in relative decline. Then there is you point on targeted sanctions. You would see the illegality of such sanctions under WTO rules as an impediment to such a course of action for them?
GregM since I’ve been reading more climate change stuff I’ve been reading less about trade. But these threats between friends are not idle or paper tigers. They go for sectors that will have maximum effect on groups that have most lobbying effect within the target country. The fact that disputes are usually settled before the sanctions come into effect shows just how effective they are.
If I get time tonight I’ll look up the detail on this, but Pearse, I think, reckons it’s rubbish. He reckons that come 2012 most of them will be there, or buy their way there through credits from the CDM.
Europe in particular did not appreciate Robert Hill’s intransigent stand in Tokyo in the early hours of the morning on the last night when he was prepared to jettison the whole deal if Australia did not get it’s way. So they are likely to disregard our Kyoto concession in any new negotiations.
Kyoto and those who take it seriously will have had 10 years start on Australia in the difficult task of trying to cap emissions and turn them around. There was a World Bank study that hit my earlobes early this morning saying that Australia inreased it’s emissions by 38% since 1990, more than the UK, France and Germany conbined. They’ve got their eye on us!
GregM you’re the lawyer, but the EU wouldn’t be doing anything that was illegal. Hypocritical, yes, they are specialists in that.
The relative decline doesn’t matter because these things operate in the short term and the trade with the EU is huge. Remember we would not be entitled to retaliate.
Gotta go now. See you tonight.
Brian et al.
Thank you for an excellent post. I was utterly confused as to Labor’s position until I read this, so much so I was thinking of putting the ALP down the bottom of the ticket before the vatious conservative parties.Reading this, I gather they haven’t sold out, so they’ll be up near the top again.
I have only a very simplistic observation. If we do nothing and let the planet die, the economy JWH parrots on about will be irrelevant.
If you begin with the premise that Howard (the so-called master politician of his generation) is dishonest, sneaky and manipulative in his dealings on any issue; and particularly when he’s hunting for a wedge, then the whole farce becomes easier to understand. Shaun Carney nailed it in yesterday’s age.
Labor’s policy reflects the realities of international negotiations for action to limit the long-term impact of climate change – with the aim being to reassure the electorate. Howard’s policy is totally focussed on local economic impacts – with the aim being to scare the electorate into voting for his party. That is all.
PeterC: I’d just to take up one point.
It might be costing us jobs in the renewable energy sector, but it doesn’t seem to be affecting overall employment, given that the major reason we haven’t seen big overall wage rises due to labour shortages is the very high level (by historical standards) of immigration and temporary foreign workers.
If Robert Hill got up the nostrils of the Europeans then he has risen in my estimation.
Brian, just a small correction: the Greens are calling for a 30% cut in emissions by 2020 (and 80% by 2050). I think you might be confusing it with their renewables target, which is 25%.
More generally, I think this is a serious case of media separate to help the Coalition make hay out of very little. I don’t know anyone who seriously thinks “the parties are coming together on this issue”, as Tony Jones was making out last night. Labor is not doing nearly enough, but it’s a damn sight better than John “not one job” Howard, or Mark Vaile for that matter!
Remember what???? Of course we would be entitled to retaliate. If we are not party to a treaty then we are perfectly within our rights to retaliate in any way we please if action is taken against us under that treaty.
Our exports to Europe in 2006 were worth 11.9 billion dollars in 2006, which is roughly 1% of our GDP. Their exports to us were worth 24 billion dollars, most of which would have adequate substitutes from competing markets. I am sure that they’d be raring to go at the opportunity to cut off their noses to spite their faces.
Agreed, employment measure is quite high at present. But if you include underemployment (people who would like to work more but don’t have the opportunity) the unemployment figure rises to 10%.
My point is that the renewable energy sector should have grown and continue to grow to be a major employer in the future – much larger than the coal industry – and become a major exporter.
Under current Howard Government policies it is languishing compared to Europe ($38b in 2006). Labor’s MRET will help steer things in the right direction.
Unless it’s biofuels then the renewable energy sector won’t be exporting any energy as what it produces is electricity which, without undersea cables, cannot be exported. Biofuels would be problematic on a large scale as they would take up land currently used for food production.
However it would be nice if we could develop a large renewable energy technology industry, although it is hard to see how we’d achieve the economies of scale to compete with say India or China if they turned their minds to large-scale manufacturing in that area.
Yes, Peter, I’m aware of the labour underutilization statistics. Over the next decade, I’d expect the retirement of the baby boomers to take care of that problem – and, in any case, the best thing governments can probably do to help with that is to educate Australians to enable them to take the jobs currently available that employers are getting people on 457 visas to fill.
I have to agree with GregM’s comments about China and India, though. Australia, even with government support, doesn’t strike me as a particularly sensible place to be starting up large-scale export manufacturing industries at the moment.
Paul B, glad to be of help. I think within the next couple of parliaments people are going to realise that the situation is worse than the IPCC report portrayed. In this situation Labor have a much more solid grasp on the issue and I’d trust them more to take the issue seriously. Turnbull is right up there, constantly talking about needing to decarbonise completely the production of electricity. He’s also clearly aware that some developing countries will have to make cuts, not just limit growth.
But I suspect his own political ambitions will take him to another portfolio if he has the choice. Also Costello if he becomes PM (shudder!) is likely to see him as a threat and demote him slightly.
GregM, Hill didn’t just get up the Europeans nostrils. As I recall it was 1.30 in the morning and the meeting wanted a consensus deal so they could wrap it up and stagger onto their planes in the morning. Hill insisted on plus 8% when everyone else was taking cuts. It was his stubbornness rather than his arguments that won the day. The Europeans have let him know they didn’t appreciate it. But our reputation is now so low thanks to our PM that the Kyoto ratifiers may take a piece out of our hide when we come crawling back, as we will, whereas the US is big enough to re-enter on decent terms.
They are more likely to be gentle with a Rudd government, I think.
Juz, you are right. I was pretty stuffed last night.
I was pissed off too that the media were seeing parity in the policies, which is what motivated the post.
GregM, we don’t do trade wars anymore as such. Any action would need to be taken within the WTO rules. This is from the article I linked to:
They might wack a tariff on our aluminium and all the fancy yachts and ferries we make, for example, because we make them with cheap carbon-producing electricity. We would need to have a reason to retaliate, and there may not be one. We couldn’t just act out of revenge.
If we get a respectable carbon trading system up we are probably safe, and one that doesn’t exempt the aluminium industry.
It’s not a big point, but one I thought worth mentioning to emphasise the folly of Howard.
Last comment.
I found an article about a study that claims we are missing out on $3.8 billion each year by not ratifying Kyoto.
I also found this paper from the David Suzuki Foundation about who is meeting Kyoto targets. The main problems are Canada, Japan and Norway.
Here’s one on Europe, a little less sanguine, but thereabouts.
Good analysis of Autralia (Howard’s) recalitrant position on climate change in today’s Age [link] Garrett’s recent slip is also covered. It may be trivial but it gave Howard an angle to attack, however incredible.
Thanks, Peterc. I have to go now, but tonight I’ll try to put up a shorter version of the narrative of this one, either here or in a new post.
Tim Dunlop has had a go at Blogocracy and has largely got it wrong, by concentrating too much on individual words like “deal breaker” (or the wrong inividual words.)
Two of the key perceptions should be that Rudd and Garrett were actually joined at the hip all the way through, and the original intention was to lay down an artillery barrage criticising Howard for not signing Kyoto prior to launching their (further) differentiating policy on MRET. Howard found a weakness to attack and went for it. Rudd and Garrett decided to declare a draw on that one, get it out of the way so they could get their MRET thing out.
They did it as an apparent me-too, but a careful reading of their script (“appropriate”, but unspecified commitments from the developing countries) indicates that they had not changed their policy, only created the impression that they had.
Importantly there was no backflip, no change of Labor policy and Rudd and Garrett were in it together, there was no rebuke or cutting off at the knees.
The two key elements of policy differentiation remain – signing Kyoto and an bigger, better MRET (leaving aside no nukes)..
There, I’ve done it (I think!)
BTW whatever comes out of Bali and beyond leading to Kyoto 2, which is the UNFCCC, even if we sign Kyoto we will be one vote in 193. The notion that Australia is going to determine the outcome by insisting on anything is fanciful. Also the US whoever wins the election is bound to join up. Bush conceded at the G8 that the UNFCCC was the main game. A Coalition govt in 2009, the crunch point, won’t be holding out by themselves or with the possible company of Khazakhstan.
BREAKING: Garrett says “once we get in we’ll just change it all“!
Hope that sorts out any confusion.
Richard Dawkins has confirmed that Garrett was just joking.
This could actually spin out ok for Labor, since a lot of voters are worrying that they might NOT change anything. But that won’t stop the GG… or Howard.
I think you mean Wilkins
And that “story” has been surpassed by Ben Cousins being called before the AFL and the mysterious death of a Network Ten Newsreader.
Wilkins, Dawkins, … both intellectual giants! LOL
On the one hand you cringe when you hear Garrett making these faux pas, on the other hand it reminds you he is not a hardcore Canberra professional. It will be more than a little bit interesting to see what he brings to a Rudd government (if and when).
I’m thinking this story will have lots of legs in tomorrow’s GG. And Howard will do it to death, over and over and over, with that stupid “isn’t that incredible?” raised eyebrows plus grin. It pales against the Kevin Andrews story, of course, but surely that’s all the more reason to run with it?
One thing to keep in mind: if Labor don’t win both houses, they will need to compromise with the Libs to get their laws passed. So maybe it WOULD be a Howard-lite government. Unless the Greens win the Senate, in which case they really WOULD have to dump all the Howard-style policies.
Vote Green for the Senate!
The ABC have been running that story all afternoon and then Cossie climbing all over it (who would believe him?)
By the end of the day they had unearthed Richard Wilkins:
Price is incompetent and either malicious or wanting to big-note himself. The ABC is as usual boosting the rubbish that passes for news.
I’ll say this, though. Albanese wouldn’t have given them anything to exploit. I heard hi today on climate change, via nukes. He was fluent, on message, attacking Howard all over. You didn’t feel you were sitting on the edge of your seat hoping he had learnt his lines.
Rod Cameron’s right in what he said on Lateline. The public will see this for what it is and the Libs’ attempt to erect a huge “danger Will Robinson!” scare on the back of it will sink without a trace.
I hope so, Kim.
On the business about whether China and India will join any Kyoto mark 2 agreement, I’ve decided it’s a nonsense question. The agreement will be crafted with China and India centrally involved in it’s design. The critical group is initially the G8 plus 5, ie China, India, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa. The Bush meeting included also Australia, Indonesia, and South Korea.
I actually think the Bush meeting grouping could be quite handy in working through the issues. But the Least Developed Countries can no longer be taken for granted. It’s possible that there will be three groupings attached to the new agreement.
As I’ve already remarked on another post, Garrett is turning into a liability for the ALP. Another one of Latham’s bright ideas gone sour.Howard will run with this right up to election day. Garrett is siomply not discreet enough to be a Minister. I’m utterly appalled at his stupidity. Price w3ill do anythiung to bignote himself, be a player. Its obviously a beat-up, but Garrett should never have provided the ammunition.
Guy Pearse writes on Howard’s hypocricy at The Bulletin.
GOLD! I tells ya… ! Err…
From Michelle Grattan:
OTOH:
BTW:
NB: That’s the #1 story at The Age online today.
You can hear Guy Pearse talking about Howard’s climate change hypocrisy on YouTube. [link]
I find it mind boggling that Howard can spend 10 years getting the coal industry to write Australia’s energy policy and legislation. This is corruption and nepotism. Howard should be sacked for this alone.
Umm, can we get a thread going on Garrett’s latest remarks (and maybe also the latest Haneef/Andrews news)?
OK, never mind. SAw the latest thread comments are going that way…
I talk to the tree-ee-ees…
“That’s why they put me a-waaa-y”
Quiggin has an interesting post on Prins and Rayner, the two Brits who want to ditch Kyoto. Quiggin makes a lot of sense. I was staggered by this statement:
US perfidy knows no bounds, it seems.
I thought the Bush meeting of main polluters may have some value, if properly run and with serious intent, as long as it fed into the UNFCCC process especially on things like carbon trading. Now it seems a new beast is born, ICAP, with membership comprising 9 EU countries, Norway, New Zealand and a bunch of US and Canadian states.
Australia is missing from the list, although this article suggests we’re there.