Greenhouse: the state of play
p. 27 · Read in the full issue
IT’S now more than two years since the 15 South Pacific Forum Heads of Government issued their first warning about the potentially disastrous implications of the Greenhouse Effect.
By the time that warning was issued, at the Forum in Kiribati, it had become clear that as many as five island states could become uninhabitable if the predicted sea level rises associated with Greehouse-induced global warming took place.
Since then there have been more worrying
signs.
In French Polynesia 90 per cent of the coral on the outer slopes of Moorea’s barrier reef has lost its colour since March this year.
While there is no definite link with global warming the bleaching has coincided with higher than normal water temperatures.
If the bleaching is a sign of Greenhouse changes, as some scientists have speculated, it could have major implications for the ability of reefs to withstand storms and sea level rises.
Growing evidence for the Greenhouse Effect has led to unprecendented action from international bodies.
The United Nations Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a body of more than 300 of the world’s top climate experts, has concluded that out of more than 60 per cent in carbon dioxide emmissions would be necessary just to stabilise current concentrations in the atmosphere.
Carbon dioxide, although not the most potent Greenhouse gas, is by far the biggest in volume. It is released by burning coal and other fossil fuels such as petrol and, as a result, is central to the very structure of all industrialised nations.
Fear of the potential for environmental catastrophe has spurred the United Nations into negotiations for an interna tional climate convention. This would, hopefully, bind countries to reduce their Greenhouse gas emmissions before global warming and the depletion of the earth’s protective ozone layer become run-away processes beyond the control of mankind.
Through the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), the South Pacific nations have been taking a leading role in demanding action. Eighty percent of all Greenhouse gases come from the quarter of the world’s population who live in the industrialised nations.
AOSIS’s six-point plan of minimum conditions for a climate convention includes immediate and significant cuts in the emmission of carbon dioxide and other Greenhouse gases, new funding mechanisms which recognise the need to compensate vulnerable island nations, the application of the polluter-pays principle in compensating for the consequences of climate change, the expeditious transfer of environmentally sound technologies and commitments on energy conservation and development of alternative energy.
The campaign by the Alliance of Small Island States is moving apace. At the June climate convention negotiating session the Alliance’s membership jumped from 28 to 34. With
new members like Singapore the Alliance has increasing political clout. The real problem in the negotiations is that it is the world’s most powerful nations: the United States, the USSR and Japan, which are, by far, the worst offenders.
The United States and the USSR have both opposed commitments to limit carbon dioxide emmissions. Washington has consistendy cast doubt on scientists’ concern about the Greenhouse Effect and in negotiations insists on
euphemisms such as ‘possible climate change’
rather than the more realistic ‘global warm
ing’.
Those tactics have not deterred the Forum Island Nations which at this year’s Forum in the Federated States of Micronesia came out with their strongest statement yet on the Greenhouse Effect.
The region’s leaders pointed out that the “cultural, economic and physical survival of Pacific nations was at great risk”.
They stressed the urgency behind the climate convention negotiations and called on all nations to “make significant and immediate reductions in emmission of industrially generated
Greenhouse gases”.
In Australia, the question of targets for Greenhouse gas emissions has become a green political battleground with environmentalists taking on key economic ministers such as Treasurer John Kerin, Employment and Training Minister John Dawkins, and Industry Minister John Button.
In October last year the environmentalists won the first round with the government agreeing to set an interim planning target to reduce emissions of Greenhouse gases by 20 per cent by the year 2005.
That put Australia amongst the most progressive of industrial nations but there was also a catch. The new target would only stand if it could be attained without taking measures which would have adverse economic impact or affect Australia’s trade competitiveness.
Like the large number of other nations around the world which have set targets for Greenhouse gas reductions, Australia has now embarked on the daunting task of auditing every industry for possible reductions.
It is doing that through what has become known as the
ecologically sustainable development (ESD) process.
That involves a series of committees, with representatives from government, industry and the environment movement, sitting down and examining each industry sector.
Although there has been a great deal of concern amongst environmentalists that the ESD process might be captured by industry anxious to make use of its escape clause, those fears seem not to have been founded. As the process reaches its conclusion, industry appears to have begun to understand the seriousness of the Greenhouse threat and been prepared to look at initiatives such as increased energy efficiency and technologi cal standards which could help them meet their targets.
Much to the surprise of all parties, it now appears that the 20 per cent target will be a met at minimal cost. □