Common but Differentiated? Australia's Response to Global Climate Change

Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, Summer 2004 by Lyster, Rosemary

I. INTRODUCTION

The Australian government first gained a favorable emissions reduction target under the Kyoto Protocol1 and then refused to ratify the protocol. This article explains why Australia took this position and gives a thorough overview of responses to climate change in Australia.

In preparation for the Conference of the Parties (COP) negotiations, which resulted in the Kyoto Protocol and the greenhouse gas emission reduction obligations of Annex I countries, the government insisted that the principle of "common but differentiated responsibility" be applied when determining Australia's liability. In terms of the Kyoto Protocol, Australia's emissions target is 108% of 1990 emissions in the first commitment period of 2008-2012. This target is 13% higher than most members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

Recently, the Australian government reiterated its refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.2 The federal government also announced in early 2004 that it has decided not to establish a domestic emissions trading regime until a legally binding international emissions market is in place.3 The government justifies its stance by claiming that unless and until the United States and developing countries ratify the Protocol, it can have no meaningful application.4 The federal government of Australia has also relied continually on its U.S. $1 billion investment in a "no-regrets" policy to argue that it will be able to meet its protocol commitment without ratifying.

This article will show that the Australian government's position on the Protocol is sympathetic to narrow industrial interests and will document the many serious criticisms that have been leveled at the "no-regrets" policy. The responses of a number of interest groups in Australia will also be canvassed. The article will then discuss the many initiatives being taken at state and local government levels to reduce greenhouse emissions. Ultimately, the article will conclude that it is questionable whether Australia's current response to global climate change can and will reduce Australia's greenhouse emissions in any meaningful way. Certainly a meaningful reduction in emissions will not occur without paying close attention to the stationary energy sector, which emits the majority of Australia's greenhouse gases. These emissions have escalated since the establishment of a liberalized National Electricity Market (NEM), consistent with Australia's National Competition Policy.

II. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ADOPTS A "COMMON BUT DIFFERENTIATED APPROACH"

The government has stated consistently that it will not ratify the Kyoto Protocol unless the United States and developing countries ratify. The federal government's stance on the Kyoto Protocol has its origins in the position it adopted going into the protocol negotiations in December 1997. Prior to the negotiations, the federal government insisted that it wanted the outcome of the negotiations to be fair and achievable, defining a fair outcome as one where all of the costs of reducing greenhouse emissions would be shared equitably by all countries.3 Importantly, it insisted that Australia be allowed to rely on the principle of common but differentiated responsibility for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

In the federal government's view, uniform international emissions targets of reducing emissions to 5% below that of 1990 levels would not be fair while the European Union allowed some countries to reduce their emissions by 30% while others would increase emissions by 40%.6 Furthermore, based on anticipated economic growth, Australia's emissions would probably increase by 40% compared with 1990 levels.

The federal government relied on economic modeling undertaken by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE) in developing its position.7 ABARE concluded that the cost to the Australian economy of reducing greenhouse emissions would be twenty-two times higher than for an average European country, and six times higher than for the United States. This meant that Australia would be expected to sacrifice a higher proportion of jobs even though it only contributes 1 % of the world's emissions compared with 19% for the United States, and 14% for the European Union.* For Australia to meet the proposed target, it would have to sacrifice highly efficient coal mining, mineral processing9 and agricultural production.10 Australia also argued that the target would result in the displacement of emissions to neighbors." As a result, Australia argued strongly for the principle of differentiation to be accepted and adopted when setting national emission reduction targets as this would also encourage developing countries to participate in reduction programs.12

There has been a great deal of criticism of the government's position at Kyoto, particularly since it relied entirely on ABARE modeling13 to reach its conclusions. ABARE modeling did not take into account the potential social, environmental, and economic costs to Australia from bushfires, floods, and tropical cyclones, and other natural disasters resulting in the loss of crop production and widespread property damage, likely to occur as a result of climate change.14 ABARE also did not account for benefits to the Australian economy of developing and selling renewable energy technologies like solar and wind, areas in which Australia has been recognized as a world leader.