- Home
- About us
- News and events
- Issues
- Solutions
- Take action
- Resources
- Donate
- Shop
- Home
- About us
- News and events
- Issues
- Solutions
- Take action
- Resources
- Donate
- Shop
You Are Here:
In 2005, Greenpeace called on New South Wales premier Bob Carr to fill the leadership vacuum left by the prime minister's refusal to ratify Kyoto.
Enlarge imageOn World Environment Day, 2002, Prime Minister John Howard announced that his government would not ratify the Kyoto Protocol.
Previously, Australia, along with other nations such as the US and Canada, weakened the protocol by:
Under the Kyoto Protocol, 1990 was the year set as the baseline for assessing greenhouse gas emission targets for each country. In 1990 in Australia, unusually vasts tracts of land were cleared. Land clearing releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere when the trees burn and rot. Because Australia's land clearing rate was so high at the time, its emissions were also unusually high in 1990. Since 1990, Australia's rate of land clearing (and its emissions from this source) has dropped significantly.
At the Kyoto negotiations, Australia made sure that the massive 1990 emissions from land clearing were counted in its emissions baseline. Thus, Australia's 'status quo' emissions appeared very high. A high baseline emissions figure meant that the government would have to do little to actively reduce emissions in the future. To get below the 1990 baseline, they simply had to ensure that not as much land was cleared. The government already knew that landclearing would never again be at the high levels it was in 1990. So, without doing anything positive to lessen emissions, Australia would easily meet its 1990 baseline in future years.
This loophole means that, rather than reduce emissions from fossil fuel sources, Australia can use the drop in emissions from land clearing that has already happened to show that we're meeting our emissions reduction target. At the same time Australia can claim that it needs a high emissions target because it would be too difficult for this country to meet a low one.
Prime Minister Howard has declared that it would not be in Australia's interest to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, even though the government still intends to meet the targets under the agreement. The Protocol would actually make it less costly for Australia to meet its target through international trading mechanisms.
A Greenpeace commissioned poll in 2002 showed that 71 per cent of Australians believe it would be in Australia's interests to ratify the Kyoto Protocol (Taylor Nelson Sofres poll June 2002). This survey also showed that 62 per cent believe ratifying the protocol would have either a positive effect or no effect on the economy.
The government's own economic analysis of the impacts of Kyoto shows that 85 per cent of Australian industry would benefit or see no net loss. Progressive industry groups such as Environment Business Australia (EBA) and the Australian EcoGeneration Association say that being part of the international Protocol will bring economic benefits to Australia.
The government's analysis also shows that, over the next 10 years, Australia would be better off if it ratified the Protocol but that, beyond 10 years, it would be worse off. However, this analysis makes no sense as the only targets so far set under the Kyoto Protocol deal with the next 10 years. The details of emissions control beyond 2012 have not yet been negotiated. How can the government claim to be disadvantaged by targets that do not exist yet?
It's time Mr Howard took a broader view and recognised the significant support for Kyoto from business and the public.
Australia and the US are the only two developed countries still refusing to ratify. Our position puts Australians and our Pacific neighbours at risk from the impacts of climate change. It also puts the Australian economy at risk of missing out on emissions trading and the burgeoning global market in renewable energy.
Renewable energy is one of the fastest growing new global industries. Australia's position is already losing us business deals with companies looking to secure their future in a carbon-constrained world.
Climate change is not just about what suits the Australian government. It is a global problem that requires global collaboration. We have an international responsibility to significantly reduce our emissions. Mr Howard's selfish and embarrassing position will jeopardise the lives and livelihoods of millions of people, including those in the Pacific and Australia, for the narrow interests of the fossil fuel industry.
Previously, Australia, along with other nations such as the US and Canada, weakened the protocol by:
- negotiating a target which allows an increase in Australia's greenhouse emissions by eight per cent above 1990 levels
- supporting weak penalties for countries that fail to meet Kyoto targets
- pushing to include dangerous loopholes in the protocol, such as carbon sinks
- refusing to sign at the last minute unless a special loophole on land clearing was created for Australia alone.
The Australia clause
Under the Kyoto Protocol, 1990 was the year set as the baseline for assessing greenhouse gas emission targets for each country. In 1990 in Australia, unusually vasts tracts of land were cleared. Land clearing releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere when the trees burn and rot. Because Australia's land clearing rate was so high at the time, its emissions were also unusually high in 1990. Since 1990, Australia's rate of land clearing (and its emissions from this source) has dropped significantly.
At the Kyoto negotiations, Australia made sure that the massive 1990 emissions from land clearing were counted in its emissions baseline. Thus, Australia's 'status quo' emissions appeared very high. A high baseline emissions figure meant that the government would have to do little to actively reduce emissions in the future. To get below the 1990 baseline, they simply had to ensure that not as much land was cleared. The government already knew that landclearing would never again be at the high levels it was in 1990. So, without doing anything positive to lessen emissions, Australia would easily meet its 1990 baseline in future years.
This loophole means that, rather than reduce emissions from fossil fuel sources, Australia can use the drop in emissions from land clearing that has already happened to show that we're meeting our emissions reduction target. At the same time Australia can claim that it needs a high emissions target because it would be too difficult for this country to meet a low one.
Public opinion
Prime Minister Howard has declared that it would not be in Australia's interest to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, even though the government still intends to meet the targets under the agreement. The Protocol would actually make it less costly for Australia to meet its target through international trading mechanisms.
A Greenpeace commissioned poll in 2002 showed that 71 per cent of Australians believe it would be in Australia's interests to ratify the Kyoto Protocol (Taylor Nelson Sofres poll June 2002). This survey also showed that 62 per cent believe ratifying the protocol would have either a positive effect or no effect on the economy.
The government's own economic analysis of the impacts of Kyoto shows that 85 per cent of Australian industry would benefit or see no net loss. Progressive industry groups such as Environment Business Australia (EBA) and the Australian EcoGeneration Association say that being part of the international Protocol will bring economic benefits to Australia.
The government's analysis also shows that, over the next 10 years, Australia would be better off if it ratified the Protocol but that, beyond 10 years, it would be worse off. However, this analysis makes no sense as the only targets so far set under the Kyoto Protocol deal with the next 10 years. The details of emissions control beyond 2012 have not yet been negotiated. How can the government claim to be disadvantaged by targets that do not exist yet?
It's time Mr Howard took a broader view and recognised the significant support for Kyoto from business and the public.
Australian business left behind
Australia and the US are the only two developed countries still refusing to ratify. Our position puts Australians and our Pacific neighbours at risk from the impacts of climate change. It also puts the Australian economy at risk of missing out on emissions trading and the burgeoning global market in renewable energy.
Renewable energy is one of the fastest growing new global industries. Australia's position is already losing us business deals with companies looking to secure their future in a carbon-constrained world.
Lives and livelihoods sacrificed
Climate change is not just about what suits the Australian government. It is a global problem that requires global collaboration. We have an international responsibility to significantly reduce our emissions. Mr Howard's selfish and embarrassing position will jeopardise the lives and livelihoods of millions of people, including those in the Pacific and Australia, for the narrow interests of the fossil fuel industry.
