Climate debacle

Jemima Garrett

Sydney

Australia more than got its own way at the cru cial climate convention in Kyoto, Japan and in doing so may have threatened the very future of the agreement which took 159 nations 11 exhausting days to hammer out.

The Kyoto Protocol, as it is known, commits the 39 industri alised nations to reduce their total greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2 percent on 1990 levels by 2012. That is well below the Pacific Islands demand for a 20 percent reduction and even further behind the. reduction necessary to stabilise the concentrations of the warming gases in the atmosphere. Nevertheless, the fact that the industrialised nations have agreed to mandatory cuts is a major step. And it almost did not happen.

The major deal which saw Europe commit itself to a reduction of 8 percent, the United States to 7 percent and Japan to 6 percent was stitched up after midnight on the day talks were supposed to end. All six of the major greenhouse gases were included - carbon dioxide (by far the most common of the greenhouse pollutants), nitrous oxide (which is also emitted in the burning of fossil fuels), methane (put off by organic waste) and the three ‘halo carbons’ (which are substitutes for ozone damaging chemicals - small in number but powerful warming agents).

One of the key people in brokering the deal was the United Nations negotiator Raul Estrada. “This is a figure that is going to have an impact on the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere” he declared at the end of the talks.

But not Australia’s contribution. Despite being the third highest greenhouse emitter per head of population, Australia’s refusal to contemplate any cut in its greenhouse emissions saw it emerge as one of only three nations actually allowed to increase its emissions - to 8 percent above 1990 levels by 2012.

Iceland (which may increase its emissions by 10 percent) and Norway (by one percent) obtained their concessions because they derive the vast bulk of their electricity from renewable sources and therefore have few means to make real reductions.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard, who has always claimed that Australia’s specialisation in high-energy industries put it in a different category, was jubilant.

“We fought for Australian jobs every inch of the way and the outcome vindicates Australia’s stance” he said.

“It’s an outcome that will protect tens of thousands of Australian jobs and importantly, it’s an outcome that will put the world on a firmer path towards controlling greenhouse gas emis sions” Howard said. During the negotiations Australia staunchly refused to contemplate any cuts to its emissions and, even when offered its own special deal, refused to agree to sign on to the Protocol until land-clearing was included in the package of mea

sures taken into account in assessing emission reductions.

It was the last-minute inclusion of land-clearing that most wor ried Australian scientists and environmentalists because they claim it will allow Australia to go way over its 8 percent limit.

In the inventory which assessed Australia’s contribution to global warming back in 1990 land clearing contributed to just over 20 percent emissions. Professor lan Noble, from the Australian National University, who helped prepare the inventory, points out that land-clearing has already been cut by two-thirds.

Professor lan Lowe, another widely respected scientist, says the inclusion of land-clearing in Australia’s quota effectively allows Australia to increase emissions by 30 percent.

He says it is nothing more than “a license to pollute”.

Australian environmental groups were angry and embarrassed by the Howard government’s strategy at Kyoto.

“The performance of the Australian government in its whole negotiating process has been an absolute disgrace and a complete con job,” said Peter Kinrade from the Australian Conservation Foundation.

Even public opinion was not behind Prime Minister Howard. A Herald-AC Nielson-McNair survey showed 90 percent of Australians were either “concerned” or “very concerned” about the environmental effects of global warming and that 68 percent believed the government’s concern that a climate treaty would cause economic damage to Australia should not stop it signing.

Before the convention broke up, the leader of the European delegation was describing the easy treatment of Australia as a “problem” that would need to be fixed.

If the Kyoto Protocol is to be effective it still has some hurdles to overcome. First and foremost among those is the US congress and senate, which must approve the Protocol by a two thirds majority before Washington can ratify it.

The Australian precedent will be very much in the minds of congressmen and senators when they vote on the bill and will become another weapon for those opposing tough greenhouse action. Like Howard they have been concerned about the impact cuts in greenhouse emissions will have on jobs in America.

To enable the Kyoto deal to be struck. President Bill Clinton made a substantial concession, moving from his original plan to stabilise US emissions at 1990 levels to a promise to reduce emis sions by 7 percent.

With a majority in the senate opposed to the Kyoto deal, Clinton now faces a very tough job indeed.

Even if the industrialised nations meet their Kyoto Protocol promises, scientists say those cuts will not be enough to stop the phenomena associated with global warming - the increased storms and floods, sea-level rise and salt water inundation which threat ens the very existence of many of island communities.

At the Kyoto convention Nauru’s President Kinza Clodumar, while not mentioning Australia by name in his speech, nonetheless had a clear message. “The wilful destruction of entire countries and cultures with foreknowledge would represent an unspeakable crime against humanity,” he said. “No nation has the right to place its own misconstrued national interest before the physical and cul tural survival of whole countries. The crime is cultural genocide; it must not be tolerated by the family of nations,” President Clodumar said.

“The crime is no less when it is perpetrated slowly by the emis sions of invisible gases”. ■