|
July 13, 2004
In yesterday's and today's Australian Financial Review (subscription required) there are articles on climate change, the European Union and the Kyoto Protocol. They are based on an interview by Geoff Kitney with Margot Wallstrom, the EU's environment commissioner.
Wallstrom says that once Russia ratifies the Kyoto Protocol--and they are preparing the instruments to ratify Kyoto--- the critical mass required for it to come into effect will be achieved. The likelihood is that the rest of the world will go ahead with implementing the treaty. That pretty much leaves the US and Australia standing alone as the main opponents of Kyoto. Wallstrom says:
"I expect they will still continue to hold out. There is a lot of prestige and there are a lot of vested interests involved....But I think in the end, so many countries willl adopt Kyoto the pressure will be too strong for the United States and Australia. The pressure will come from their business communities. Already we have many US companies coming to us because
we are going ahead with emissions trading early next year. They want to trade with us."
A thought. Is Australia standing with the US because of the alliance relationship? It is being a loyal ally by giving the US a fig leaf of international credibility. Surely not? Is it not more likely that the Howard Government has been completely captured by the energy-intensive industries?
Wallstrom then goes onto say:
"I think that despite the positions of the US and Australia, we do have a consensus that climate change is happening. We have a consensus that is real and also a consensus from the world's best scientists that it is man-made and that the influence of human activities means we have a reason to act."
How long will the last stand by the world's two major greenhouse-gas-producing developed nations continue?
At the moment the US and Australia are opposed to reducing emissions within an international legal framework, which establishes the rules by which all nations must play. Is this yet another expression of the Howard Government's contempt for the institutions of liberal internationalism?
|
It is difficult to envisage quantity controls on GG emissions working. Australia is a large emitter because of its minerals and energy resources. For example, a couple of suburbs away from me is Ion Automotive(previously Castalloy), an aluminium foundry, which produces among other things, alloy wheels for Harley Davidson. (They also supply automotive castings to GMH which exports its Monaro, etc)Now clearly these wheels supply a world market, yet the emissions from this process are generated in Australia and add to our per capita consumption. Would it make us all feel better if these raw materials were exported to a low emission country and used there? This would certainly help Australians meet Kyoto targets, ie the letter of the law, but would it achieve the intent of the law?