Why Australia must act now
1 Oct 11
There are three common arguments against taking action to reduce climate change.
One is that Australia contributes so little to total global emissions that action here will make very little difference.
Secondly, Australia should not take action to reduce emissions unless others also take action, or while countries like China are increasing emissions.
Finally, even if Australia was to take action – now is not the time because the global economy is fragile; Australian exports are under pressure of the high Aussie dollar; and, more locally, industries such as steel are being restructured.
Each of these arguments can sound logical in isolation, but not when viewed in a bigger context.
It is not important for Australia to act given its relatively low level of greenhouse gas (ghg) emissions.
Australia emits about 1.5 per cent of total global emissions, a percentage similar to Italy, UK, France and Spain.
In fact, more than 90 percent of countries individually emit less than 2 percent of the total.
If they all adopted an attitude that their contribution was insignificant, the world would have little chance of limiting global warming to an increase of 2oC.
Australia has a responsibility to act on the basis that, per person, we are the highest greenhouse gas (ghg) emitters in the world.
Of the world’s 20 largest emitting countries, Australia emits the most at 18.8 tonnes of CO2 per person in 2009, while Indians emitted 1.4 tonnes per person that same year.
Australia should not take action to reduce emissions unless others also take action or while countries like China are increasing emissions.
In addressing this, I’d like to consider three different levels of economy: developed/industrial countries, poor countries, and those transitioning to development.
In total, eighty-nine countries have pledged to cut their greenhouse gas (ghg) emissions.
This represents 80 per cent of global emissions and 90 per cent of the global economy.
Thirty-one countries have already put a price on carbon pollution.
Action in the United States is being taken at national and State levels.
Since January this year the US, under its Clean Air Act, has regulated carbon emissions from large industrial facilities.
Its new Clean Energy Standard will double the share of clean energy to 80 per cent by 2035. California – the world’s eighth largest economy with a population almost twice that of Australia – will commence emissions trading in January 2012.
Emissions trading operates across Europe with some European countries sharing trade in emissions.
South Korea has trialled emissions trading in 14 cities and provinces, including Seoul and is introducing legislation to commence national emissions trading from 2015.
As for poor countries, the nations of the world (via the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC) have agreed that undeveloped countries should be allowed to increase their relative share of emissions to accommodate their aspirations for growth and poverty reduction.
As one of the signatories to this convention, Australia has recognised the right of the poor to the basic privileges of development (i.e. education, health and access to energy and clean water).
The Convention also recognises that the responsibility for reducing ghgs should be based on the principle of ‘polluter pays’.
Ninety percent of the historical build up of CO2 in the atmosphere has come from rich nations but the worse impacts of climate change are likely to affect the poorest.
Although today many people don’t consider China and India as developing countries - they are still working their way out of poverty, transitioning to a developed status.
At least 300 million people in China do not have access to safe, clean drinking water.
Almost 35 per cent of the population was still living on less than $2/day in 2005.
More than 70 percent of India’s rural population live in poverty with 233 million suffering chronic hunger and undernourished.
Despite continuing levels of poverty in India and China, these countries have done more than Australia to reduce ghgs.
India is one of the top five wind energy installers in the world and has announced a carbon intensity cut of 20 to 25 percent by 2020. India’s energy efficiency certificate trading scheme covers more than 50 per cent of the fossil fuel used there and will help reduce carbon pollution by 25 million tonnes per year by 2014-15. In July 2010 India initiated a coal tax levied on both imported coal and coal produced in India.
The tax is estimated to have raised half a billion dollars by July 2011 for investments in clean energy technologies.
While China is still establishing coal-based energy plants, these are to replace old plants that are more polluting.
In the meantime they are also transitioning to a lower-carbon future.
China is one the leaders in renewable energy in the Asia Pacific region (ACF 2006) and the world’s largest manufacturer of both solar panels and wind turbines.
It has pledged to reduce its carbon intensity by about 40 per cent by 2020 and to reafforest areas equivalent to a couple per cent of the Chinese territory.
China has installed 35 gigawatts of renewable energy (not including large hydro) which is more than the entire generating capacity in Australia’s east coast National Electricity market (Qld, NSW, Vic & SA).
Twenty-four million Chinese households use solar hot water. China is also establishing emissions trading in eight cities and 5 provinces.
Those concerned about Australia’s economy might also keep in mind that China is a major trading partner of Australia and a key market for Australia’s coal and iron ore; i.e. China’s right to develop also benefits Australia.
A key point of international negotiations has been for developed countries to reduce their emissions and, for now, allow emissions from poor countries.
The idea is that by 2050 these two trajectories will converge to an equal level globally on a ‘per person’ basis.
This approach is considered to provide the best chance of reaching an international agreement.
Now is not the time
The Climate Commission has emphasised the need to act now. Unless humanity dramatically reduces ghg emissions the concentrations will continue to rise. Greenhouse gases stay in the atmosphere for about 100 years after they are first emitted. So some changes are unavoidable due to past emissions and inevitable future emissions. The rate of required emission reduction will increase each year we delay along with the potential for catastrophic events.
Sir David King, the UK Chief Scientist, warned that a temperature rise of 3.0o C will cause severe droughts, put 400 million people at risk from hunger, and jeopardise water supplies for up to 3 billion people.
The Climate Commission advises that unless action is taken in this decade the challenge will be “impossible on anything but a wartime footing”.
The more we constrict the timeframe for reductions, the more difficult it is to achieve the necessary changes. Required change includes increased energy efficiency, further research and development of alternative technologies, news sets of skills, a change to industrial infrastructure, development of low-carbon transport systems and a change of community behaviour in terms of energy consumption.
More time offers more flexibility in making these adjustments. This decade is critical.
If the 2oC ‘guardrail’ is to be achieved, there is no time for delay.
The alternative – to make these adjustments in less time while experiencing more extreme events of flood, fire and drought, disruption of infrastructure, heatwaves, erosion of coastal properties and changes in fish stocks and river flows for irrigation - is not worth considering.
Many countries have less capacity to act than Australia.
For example, Indonesia’s emissions of 1.3 percent of global total are similar to Australia’s but its population is ten times the size of Australia’s and more than 56 percent of that population lives on less than $2 a day.
Australia can afford to act now.
The overall cost to the economy has been estimated to be in the order of one-tenth of 1 per cent of annual economic growth. Consider this: “unemployment is 4.9%, wages are rising about 4 percent a year, consumer prices are advancing about 3 percent and interest rates have been steady all year”.
Our economy is the envy of Europe, Japan and the US. We have strong institutions of education, technology, and are heavily endowed with sources of renewable energy including solar, wind, wave and geothermal energy. Given this and our status as the having the world’s highest per capita emissions, Australia’s commitment is being closely scrutinized internationally.
Understandably, its failure to act weakens the resolve of other countries.
Without legislation to reduce greenhouse gases, Australian emissions are on a trajectory to increase to 2020 by 24% (on 2000 levels). Failure to act now only makes it more difficult and expensive to act later. There may never be a perfect time to make big decisions that cost money and require us to adapt to change.
But as Garnaut said, “The costs of well-designed mitigation, substantial as they are, do not threaten to derail the long-term growth path of Australia, its developing country neighbours, or the global economy. Unmitigated climate change probably would”.
Contributed by Sandy Fritz