Australia is not a climate change leader. Here are the facts

Age
Friday 2/11/2007 Page: 15

THE debate over climate change in Australia could be seen as evidence of the existence of parallel universes. It is as if Australia and 191 other countries, including China and India, never signed and ratified the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992, as if the new Howard Government never signed the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. In this universe, Australia is a leader on climate change.

Basic facts seem to have gone down the memory hole. Indeed, John Howard is asked: "Why won't you sign?" The reason he gives for not ratifying the protocol, unlike 175 other parties to the convention, is that it does not commit developing nations to targets, an exemption established under the convention. The real reason is that the US withdrew and Australia followed.

The debates in Australia are those the world's nations thought they had settled 15 years ago. Australia led the way at the Rio Earth Conference in signing the convention. Because the rise of industrialised nations created the problem, all signatories, including Australia, accepted that, "developed country parties should take the lead in combating climate change."

All parties agreed to take mitigating action and co-operate in the development and transfer "of technologies, practices and processes that control, reduce or prevent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases." All agreed that, "the extent to which developing country parties will effectively implement their commitments under the convention will depend on the effective implementation by developed country parties of their commitments."

The convention came into force in 1994 and the agreement reached in Kyoto in 1997 was a protocol to the convention. Australia secured special treatment: it could increase greenhouse emissions to 108 per cent of 1990 levels. Howard hailed this as a "splendid result." The average commitment was to a 5 per cent cut by the time the protocol expired, which is 2012. After that, the convention expected developing nations to commit to emission controls alongside developed nations, albeit with different targets, a point Howard conceded just this week.

The US and Australia held out the prospect of some alternative path until very recently. They hit a dead end.

The convention still provides the framework for next month's negotiations in Bali. When Howard calls for a "new international agreement ... with all the major emitters" that has always been the next step under the convention. But it was the US among major emitters that first dropped the ball as Bill Clinton buckled under the weight of domestic political resistance. By April 2001, President George Bush had announced the US would withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol.

At first, the then environment minister, Robert Hill, insisted Australia would ratify, saying: "We've signed the Kyoto agreement and we've accepted what we believe to be a fair target." Within a month, Howard supported Bush and ever since has argued that Kyoto was a bad deal that would put Australia's economy at risk. Why then did his Government sign it? To put it bluntly, until its position became untenable, the Bush Administration was never interested in responding to climate change. The limitations of the Kyoto Protocol were not of concern. It simply didn't believe there was a problem. Even this week, Deputy Prime Minister Mark Vaile voiced doubts, but at least he has the integrity to say so. Everyone is entitled to have doubts and it is infinitely preferable that these be voiced, and respected, rather than have politicians misrepresent their positions and records.

Labor environment spokesman Peter Garrett's convictions are not in doubt, but he has been pilloried for his political clumsiness. His difficulty with one question - would Australia sign the next climate change agreement if developing nations are not included? - led Kevin Rudd to step in with a firm "no", which Howard said meant Rudd now agreed with him on climate change, an "unbelievable capitulation." Not nearly as unbelievable as Howard's shift within a year from open scepticism about climate change to the embrace of mandatory emission and renewable energy targets, and carbon trading - after a decade of resistance.

These are all provisions of the Kyoto Protocol, leaving just one objection to it: its lack of firm targets for developing nations, including big emitters such as China and India (both ratified it in 2002). These nations have been portrayed as recalcitrants that need to be brought into the fold. In fact, they have been on board since 1992 - it is the US and Australia that jumped ship.

The question that tripped up Garrett misses the point. The key issue is whether all nations can adopt a mix of binding measures that ensures climate change remains manageable. A post-Kyoto deal must include developing nations; the framework convention is predicated on this. If not, the whole process faces collapse. There are parallels with global trade talks; no nation can afford to be sidelined.

The question the world is asking Australia, is whether it will finally choose to be again at the heart of the process. The US is likely to come in from the cold once the Bush presidency ends in January 2009, the year in which negotiations are to be finalised. If Australia does not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, this country is excluded from its provisions for carbon trading and the clean development mechanism, by which emissions are offset by investing in reduction programs in developing countries.

Crucially, unless it ratifies, Australia lacks full voting rights and has a restricted role in shaping the next global agreement. Until then, claims to be showing leadership on climate change cannot be taken seriously.