Australia needs to improve grades on ‘climate change’ report card when the UN & G20 meet next week
Posted on 16. Sep, 2009 by Cara Bevington in Australia
You may have missed the news, but late last week Australia added another international gold to our distinguished medal tally. Sadly, this isn’t a medal to celebrate – it was for a competition that no-one wants to win. Australia has been named the worst per capita C02 polluter in the world. How’s that for global shaming?
Meet Hazelwood, Australia's dirtiest coal power station, pumping an average 17 million tons of greenhouse gases every year
British risk assessment company Maplecroft, found Australia’s overwhelmingly coal-based electricity supply means that the average Australian emits 20.58 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year.
Eeek! That’s even higher than the US - responsible for 19.78 tonnes per head. Canada came in third with 18.81 tonnes, followed by the Netherlands and Saudi Arabia.
This report challenges the convenient “Blame China” stance many Western Governments have taken. China and India emit just 4.5 and 1.16 tons of per capita CO2 respectively, a figure that pales into insignificance next to wealthy developed nations.
As if that wasn’t enough, just 3 days later another report was released ranking Australia last among wealthy countries in being ready to compete in a clean energy future or play its part in a strong climate treaty.
Commissioned by European think tank E3G and Australia’s Climate Institute and backed by British climate economist Lord Nicholas, the report found that among G20 nations, Australia is ranked 15th for its readiness to maintain its wealth as the world introduces a price on carbon dioxide emissions.
Only developing nations South Africa, India, Saudi Arabia and Indonesia fare worse. Australia’s poor standing is blamed on its reliance on greenhouse-intensive exports, cars and coal-based electricity.
In short, we won a prize no one wants: we’re coming last on climate.
These international reports clearly signify that Australia must work harder and get serious about tackling climate change; obviously current efforts are simply not going to cut it. Not that you’d know by listening to statements from our PM K Rudd. Rudd, like other global leaders, has repeatedly and publically stated that climate change is the great challenge of our time and wants to see a post-2012 outcome that sets the world on a path to limit the increase in global average temperatures to 2 degrees Celsius or less.
It is high time the Government’s rhetoric on climate change be matched by meaningful action. After all, rhetoric, no matter how strong, simply cannot safeguard the future of our world.
Luckily, opportunities abound for the government to stand up and really walk their talk.
With the Copenhagen Climate Summit just three months away, September’s a hot month (got to love a bad pun!) Governments from around the world (including ours) are engaged in near-continuous talks within and outside the formal UN negotiating process; hoping to break through the wearying paralysis that’s come to define international climate talks.
There are more climate related international meetings happening over the coming three weeks than you can poke a stick at; here’s the latest list:
- September 17-18, Washington: Leaders’ representatives will gather for a meeting of the U.S.-led Major Economies Forum (MEF);
- September 22, New York: Heads of State will participate in a UN climate summit convened by by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon;
- September 24-25, Pittsburgh: G-20 leaders will come together to discuss global economic matters; and
- September 28 – October 9, Bangkok: Government delegations will come together for the next round of the official UNFCCC climate change negotiations.
Of all of these meetings, we hope to see the most traction from the UN climate summit and the G20. There are big expectations that we’ll get much needed vigor, and a commitment on serious climate action from heads of state. It is this kind of action that will put much needed energy back into the stalling UNFCCC process.
The UN climate summit and the G20 are an opportunity for our Prime Minister to go further than just recognizing the necessity of strong climate action, and actually put some proposals on the table. Where can he make the biggest splash in the proverbial global pool? Climate finance.
Spotlight on the G20: climate finance
US President Obama has confirmed that climate change will be discussed at the G20 Summit in Pittsburgh, with a specific focus on climate finance. Many commentators hope this meeting will play a crucial role in breaking the current gridlock in the international climate talks, as we move closer and closer to the Copenhagen Climate Summit.
G20 leaders met in London earlier this year
The G20 (full country list) is a pretty important group when it comes to addressing climate change. The G20 countries account for 76 per cent of world GDP and 69 per cent of total greenhouse gas emissions.
One of the biggest barriers in the run-up to Copenhagen is how much financial support developed nations should give poorer nations to combat the problem of climate change. There’s little convergence amongst nations on how much money’s needed to address climate change, where it comes from, and who gets it. Sure - these are loaded questions, but it’s essential that we get some movement on them – and fast – as time is simply not on our side.
The Australian government, unlike the UK and the EU, has yet to make any significant public announcement on climate finance. While Treasurer Wayne Swan and Climate Change Minister Penny Wong both agree that there is “a close relationship between progress on finance and a global deal on climate change”, they are yet to formally put a proposal, or an amount, on the table.
British PM Gordon Brown and the European Union state that $AUD100bn and $AUD165bn, respectively, would be needed annually by poor nations by 2020 to tackle climate change.
Seems like a lot of money, but not compared to the $4 trillion spent by developed countries on the financial crisis so far, or the $1.3 trillion of annual global military spending.
If the negotiating process is to get back on track, the Australian government needs to take a strong leadership role among the world’s major economies. Kevin Rudd must go to the UN climate summit and the G20 next week with a clear signal that he’ll commit funds, over and above the existing aid budget, to help developing countries follow a low-carbon growth path, and cope with the impacts of climate change.
Why should developed countries transfer large sums of money to the developing world to help them address climate change? Stay tuned for my follow-up blog for commentary on this.
Right now, climate finance is a particularly sticky point in UN climate negotiations. Unless there’s action, the talks are likely to remain in gridlock. Like I’ve said before, while you can argue about the climate, you can’t argue with it. The earth simply won’t wait for us to negotiate at this slow pace.
Developing countries have spoken: it’s unfair for rich countries to expect them to agree to limit their greenhouse gas emissions, until developed countries commit to provide significant financial investment to help them.
I like to think I am being both ambitious and realistic. I am not asking for Rudd to come out with all of the climate finance answers during the UN climate summit and the G20. What I am asking however, is for our head of state, to either give support to an existing finance proposal or put a figure on the table. All commentators on the international climate negotiations say that this type of tangible action has the opportunity to move the climate negotiations forward. Is it really too much to ask Rudd to put his money where his mouth is?
Kevin is happy to hand out $900 a head so we can all buy plasma tellies, but not $200 a head for my kid’s future? I just don’t get it.
It would be an interesting challenge to have our ‘leaders’ sit down and work out what kind of life style the planet can support with, lets say 10 billion people, (we’re heading that way) and use those figures to determine just how much ALL of us could consume individually. That would be a fair and equitable way of determining who should cut back and who should be allowed to consume more. Of course, there is the distinct possibility that we in the ‘developed’ world would have to cut right back, and I mean right back (although exactly what that would actually mean I’m not sure), but I have a sneaky feeling none of us would like it.
The good news is that we are an incredibly inventive species and our desire to continue to consume is bound to come up with some really fantastic solutions/inventions that are all completely without damage to the planet. Problem is, will we get there, to that point, before we stuff it up completely?