Kyoto achieves effective response
pp. 6-7 · Read in the full issue
to climate change
Dear Madam, The contribution by Jemima Garrett to the January edition of PIM is disappoint ingly misleading. Contrary to Ms Garrett’s suggestion, Kyoto was not a “climate debacle” and neither did Australia’s posi tion “threaten the very future of the agree ment”. The Kyoto Protocol represents a significant first step in achieving an effec tive international response to climate change. Australia worked very hard to achieve such an outcome and was very pleased to be part of it. Australia has unquestionably taken on its equal share of the burden of the international response to global warming. Australia’s target repre sents a reduction in emissions growth from business-as-usual levels equal to the aver age cut of 30 percent applying to devel oped countries as a group. This is a chal
lenging but realistic undertaking.
The outcome in Kyoto, through a set of negotiated differentiated target as a means of meeting the overall Annex I reduction of 5.2 percent on 1990 levels, recognised not only the particular circumstances of Australia, but those of all Annex I coun tries. Iceland, Norway and at least five members of the European Union (Sweden, Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Greece) all have or are likely to have emission targets
above the level they had in 1990.
These EU countries are likely to be assigned emission increases in the range of five to 40 percent under a specially agreed “emission bubble” between the 15 EU members. To single out Australia for a target which restricts emission growths rather than one which imposes an absolute reduction misses the point.
Differences in individual country emis sion targets under the Kyoto Protocol reflect differences between countries in the economic impact of greenhouse gas abate ment. A regime which imposed dispropor tionately higher costs on some countries purely because of their economic structure and composition of trade which have been
inequitable.
More importantly, such an approach would have been unsustainable over the longer-term, diminishing the environmen tal effectiveness of the agreement. The inclusion in the Kyoto Protocol of provi sions which recognise changes in emission levels resulting from changes in land-use and forestry has safeguarded the principle of comprehensiveness.
This means that all human activities
which generate greenhouse gas emissions are included, removing the scope to dis guise emission producing activities.
Efforts made by Australia since 1990 to reduce emissions from land clearing are part of an accounting of all Australian emission related activities.
The Kyoto Protocol is a landmark agreement in the fight against climate change. It contains realistic and equitable targets rather than rhetoric and undeliver
able promises.
Australia will not shirk from its respon sibility to share the burden of international action and has already begun to implement the measures required to meet its contribu tion.
Meg McDonald
Australia Ambassador for the Environment