The End of the Beginning of the War Against Increasing Greenhouse Gasses
Charlie Nelson
July 2001
The world community of 186 states, with the notable exception of the United States – the most polluting nation on earth – adopted the Kyoto protocol on Monday, a historic first step towards saving the planet from the worst effects of global warming. The Guardian Weekly, July 26 to August 1 2001
While the original Kyoto protocol was watered down under pressure from the “umbrella” group (Japan, Canada, and Australia) and USA has walked away, the Bonn negotiations have probably secured a reduction in greenhouse gasses of about 2%. This is an important first step towards the ultimate goal of a 60% reduction sometime after 2010.
Ironically, the walkout by US president George W. Bush will probably result in a greater global reduction in greenhouse gasses. This will be due to competition between the American and European ways of achieving reductions.
While the USA has rejected the Kyoto agreement, there
are encouraging signs that they will still make some commitment to
greenhouse gas reductions. The
grounds for rejection of Kyoto are ostensibly linked to the risk that the
economy would suffer (and with it, the American way of life).
Cynics may say that it is because the president has been influenced
by oil companies. However,
the president and his administrators have reacted to criticism from Europe
by saying that they will act on climate change.
“The Bush administration
takes the issue of climate change seriously and we will not abdicate our
responsibilities.” Paul
Dobransky, US under-secretary for global affairs.
“Basically we are going to do our own thing here.” Christine Todd Whitman, the administrator of the US environmental protection agency.
Furthermore, public opinion in the USA is in favour of action to avoid climate change and this will force some action by the administration. An ABC News.com poll in April 2001 (1,022 adults nationwide) asked:
“An international treaty calls on the U.S. and other industrialized nations to cut back on their emissions from power plants and cars in order to reduce global warming, also known as the greenhouse effect. Some people say this would hurt the U.S. economy, and is based on uncertain science. Others say this is needed to protect the environment, and create new business opportunities. What’s your view? Do you think the United States should or should not join this treaty requiring less emissions from U.S. power plants and cars?”
- Should: 61%
- Should not: 26%
- No opinion: 13%
While the USA is yet to determine how it will act
against climate change, their independent approach may be beneficial.
The competition that this sets up could yield several advantages
over a global consensus:
- Proponents of both approaches will strive harder to prove that they are right;
- Adoption of more than one approach will enable the identification of the most effective, least cost measures;
- If one falters, the other may yet succeed. Given that the USA is responsible for 25% of greenhouse gas emissions, their success would have a global impact. On the other hand, as the USA is not responsible for 75% of emissions, their success is not essential.
- Debate about the issue of climate change and ways of tackling it will tend to raise the importance of the issue in the minds of citizens more so than if there was global accord. This increased consciousness is vital because it is citizens (both consumers and firms) who will ultimately take the actions necessary to reduce greenhouse emissions.
If this optimistic scenario does occur, where would this leave Australia? Australia was one of only three countries that were allowed to increase emissions over 1990 levels (to 108%) after pleading a special case. Furthermore, in Bonn, Australia was seen by green groups and some European countries as adopting a spoiling role. Together with the other members of the umbrella group, they forced a weakening of the original Kyoto deal. And still, Australia is not committed to ratification unless the U.S. is involved.
But America will go its own way. And Australia may not want to go America’s way, which could involve the use of nuclear power plants, for example. Australia risks becoming an environmental pariah in the eyes of the world. This could seriously damage our exports and tourism industries.
“Australia would not have to do anything new to meet its greenhouse gas reduction commitments because of the concessions it won in the Bonn deal on rules for the Kyoto climate change pact, the Minister for the Environment, Senator Robert Hill, said yesterday.” Australian Financial Review, 26 July 2001.
This attitude will not sit well with those countries who ratify Kyoto. Australia came back from Kyoto in 1997 and allowed the publication of the phrase “differentiation in our time” a play on Chamberlain’s ill-fated words after negotiations with nazi Germany in 1938 (“I believe it is peace for our time”).
Australia’s Senator Robert Hill has said that Australia is such a small greenhouse gas emitter that it matters little what Australia does. But Australia is probably the worst offender on a per capita basis and, at 2.5% of global emissions, the difference between a 10% increase and a 10% decrease is an important 0.5% in global terms. The world will require that contribution.
Perhaps the Australian government should remember
some other important wartime words – those of Winston Churchill after
the first allied victory in battle over Germany after several years of war
(Egypt in 1942).
“This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”