Dissenting report by Australian Labor Party, Australian Democrats and Australian Greens
Why the Kyoto Protocol Should be Ratified
The Kyoto Protocol should be ratified
The Kyoto Protocol Ratification Bill 2003 [No.2] should be
ratified because --
- Ratification will signal to business and the community that we
must act urgently to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
- The Kyoto Protocol provides the only available framework for
action now, rather than waiting years for a re-negotiated agreement
- If, as the government asserts, we intend to meet our Kyoto
targets anyway, it is economically preferable to do so within the framework
- As participants in the ratified Protocol, we become players in
the negotiations for future action, instead of observers
- Australia's international reputation is already damaged by the
lengths to which it went to obtain special treatment under the Kyoto Protocol;
having done so, failure to ratify is insulting to the nations who have ratified
the Protocol
- The community supports ratification.
Critics of ratification, while universally agreeing that action
is needed, failed to provide any alternative plan; Ratifying the Kyoto Protocol
is the first essential step and the only truly collective international global
response to halt global warming
Climate change
As the majority report admits, the evidence for global warming
is compelling, and that global warming constitutes a major threat to our
planet. Australia is particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change
and is predicted to become hotter and drier in coming decades, with more
extremely hot days and fewer cold days and by 2030 over most of the continent
the annual average temperature will be up to two degrees higher than in 1990.[1]
There will be more extreme weather events, including more frequent and more
severe droughts and floods, with severe consequences for our water supplies and
agriculture; tourism will be affected, particularly in the snowfields and on
the Great Barrier Reef; there will be sea level rises threatening our low-lying
areas and our neighbouring island nations; and there will be probable health
consequences in the form of wider distribution of insect-borne diseases.
In evidence to the Committee, expert witnesses from CSIRO
Climate made it clear that most of the warming that has taken place over the
last 50 years has been due to human activity. CSIRO also estimates that over
the past 200 years, carbon dioxide concentrations have risen from a background
level of around 280 parts per million to approximately 370 parts per million,
and are increasing relentlessly. Only half of the carbon dioxide emitted by
human activities is absorbed by the oceans and biosphere, leaving half in the
atmosphere where it has a lifetime of between 50 and 100 years. To slow global
warming, we will need to stabilise these atmospheric greenhouse gas
concentrations. Stabilisation of carbon dioxide concentrations at 450 parts per
million would require emission reductions of about 70 per cent by the year
2100.[2]
The question thus arises as to how best to address the
challenge of global warming. The Government stance, as reflected in the
majority report, is to increase our emission levels over our 1990 benchmark, to
engage in a few bilateral agreements for research and technology exchange, and
to modestly promote domestic abatement programs and alternative energy sources,
while refusing to be party to the one significant international approach
currently available to us. This response is clearly inadequate.
This dissenting report outlines these inadequacies and
reaffirms that the only effective response to global climate change is the
ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, as outlined in the legislation before the
Senate.
In this dissenting report, we will address and refute some of
the major reasons advanced in the majority report for the Government's refusal
to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.
The Kyoto Protocol will be ineffective in
reducing greenhouse gas emissions
It is widely accepted that the Kyoto
Protocol, if it were to come into effect, would bring about a reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions of about one per cent.[3] The majority report considers this to be an insignificant
amount (para 4.5) and therefore not worth pursuing. However, without the Kyoto
Protocol, emissions would increase dramatically[4]
Australia is a good example of this. Under a business as usual
scenario, emissions would grow by well over 22%, yet our Kyoto target is to constrain
emissions growth to 8% above 1990 levels.
More importantly however, the Kyoto Protocol is a first step.
In the view of the Climate Action Network Australia, 'an absolutely crucial
step'. It is critical to keep open the option of achieving a lower atmospheric
concentration of greenhouse gases earlier, and therefore a lower level of
global temperature increase eventually.[5]
Ms Reynolds, representing CANA, stressed that the importance of the Kyoto
Protocol lay in its timing. It represents action, now, instead of possible
renegotiations which could delay international action for years.[6]
Or, as Dr Hamilton of The Australia Institute expressed it:
To abandon the Kyoto protocol is effectively to say, 'Let's
spend another 10 years trying to negotiate an alternative.' As we know from the
science, turning around greenhouse gas emissions ... is like turning an ocean
liner. It takes a very long time and we do not have time.[7]
A principal reason for the modest initial emissions reduction
envisaged under the Kyoto Protocol is that developing countries have not been
required to accept targets for the initial commitment period of 2008-12. The
reason they have not been required to accept targets is because it is
recognised that they are not responsible for the current high level of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which were brought about by 200 years of
coal-powered industrialisation of Annex 1 countries. It is further recognised
that they have the right to overcome poverty first of all, to develop and to
enjoy the benefits of a reliable electricity supply, and the health and
educational benefits that reliable electricity can bring. It is entirely
inappropriate to criticise developing countries' failure to embrace emissions
targets when they were quite specifically excluded from them for equity reasons
for the first commitment period. Nor is it appropriate to reflect adversely on their
preparedness to accept targets in the future, when Australia refuses to give a
legally binding undertaking to meet the Kyoto targets.
As Friends of the Earth pointed out, there is no equity in the
impacts of climate change. All nations will be affected, including
non-polluting nations and those with low per capita greenhouse gas emissions.
And poor countries will be more vulnerable, because of their lack of resources
to adapt to climate change.[8]
A further reflection of the supposed
ineffectiveness of the Kyoto Protocol is the emphasis placed in the majority
report on the fact that many ratifying countries appear unlikely to meet their
first commitment period emissions targets (para 4.7), which require on average
a five per cent cut over 1990 levels However, unlike Australia, these countries are unable to rely on the so-called 'Australia
clause'. As Dr Hamilton explained:
Whilst much has been made of recent declarations that Australia
is on track to meet its Kyoto target, the fact remains that emissions from the
most important sectors – transport and stationary energy – continue to grow
rapidly, and it is possible to claim that Australia is on track to meet its
commitment only because we have been playing our get out of jail free card –
the famous, or notorious, Australia clause inserted in the Kyoto protocol
literally in the last minute of negotiations, at 2 a.m. on Thursday, 11
December 1997.
A month before the Kyoto conference, the government was
publishing greenhouse gas emissions figures that excluded land clearing
emissions in order to emphasise how rapidly Australia's emissions were growing.
It did this at the time so it could argue to the rest of the world that cutting
emissions would be especially costly for Australia. The trick worked at Kyoto,
and Australia was given special concessions on the basis of these figures.[9]
The special concessions relating to the emissions accounting
treatment of land clearing resulted in an emissions target for Australia of 108
per cent above 1990 levels, an overly generous target that Minister Kemp
reiterates we are 'within striking distance' of meeting. If we do so, it will
be thanks substantially to Queensland Premier Peter Beattie's unilateral
promise to introduce legislation to end land clearing in that State, without
federal assistance.
Australia's ratification would not bring the Kyoto
Protocol into effect
As the majority report has indicated, (para 2.14) the Kyoto
Protocol will only enter into force and become binding on the Parties to it
when it has been ratified by 55 countries, representing 55 per cent of the 1990
emissions of Parties with targets under the treaty (the so-called Annex 1
nations). To date, the quantum of 1990-level emissions accounted for by current
ratifiers is 44.2 per cent. With Australia's 1990 global emission level of 2.1
per cent, we cannot assist the reaching of the 55 per cent of global emissions
threshold which will trigger the Protocol's enforceability under international
law. Australia's ratification of the Kyoto Protocol would be principally a
symbolic act, and one which showed the world that Australia was prepared to
stand up and be counted amongst the developed nations which have shown their
willingness to accept binding emissions targets – including the United Kingdom,
Japan, France, Germany, Canada, New Zealand – in an effort to address a global
problem. The only other developed countries which remain outside the Protocol
are Russia and the United States; the former is still considering its position,
while the latter is such a significant global force that it will not be
ignored, whatever its stance on Kyoto.
The Australian Government has committed to meeting our 108 per
cent emissions target and considers this sufficient to establish our
environmental credentials on the world stage. In our view, the importance of
the symbolism of ratification should not be underestimated, whether or not the
Protocol does eventually come into force. It is a clear indicator to the global
community that we are prepared to tackle this most serious of problems in
tandem with others, rather than criticising from the sidelines. Even in the
event that the Protocol fails to reach the threshold emissions figure and come
into force, our having taken a principled stand in ratifying the treaty will
undoubtedly stand us in good stead in any future negotiations. In this context,
Dr Hamilton’s statement that 'in all my years of close involvement with
policy formulation and analysis, I can think of no instance that represents a
more egregious failure to protect the interests of this country than the
refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol,'[10]
is particularly poignant.
The hypocrisy of Australia's negotiating an excellent outcome
for itself in the preliminary negotiations, signing the Kyoto Protocol in April
1998 and then failing to ratify the treaty has not been lost on other
countries. As Dr Hamilton told the Committee,
there is a tremendous amount of resentment
against Australia as
a result of what happened at Kyoto and our subsequent refusal to ratify. I think we will be lucky
if we do not suffer payback as a result of that ... I have heard plenty of
people say that Australia will suffer trade retaliation if we refuse to ratify,
including senior officials from Europe. Japan has introduced a coal import tax. It is just inevitable that
these issues will be tied to international trade issues.[11]
The Kyoto Protocol is a flawed treaty
The Kyoto Protocol, being the result of a long period of
international negotiation, has resulted in more compromises than the purists
would wish to see. In an attempt to make it more affordable, and hence more
acceptable to developed countries, an elaborate scheme of emissions trading was
developed. Emissions trading allows transfer of emissions from one location to
another, allowing lowest cost abatement to be accessible to industry, and thus
easing the transition to a carbon constrained future.
Other flexibility measures were also created, in the form of
the Joint Implementation and Clean Development Mechanisms. A country could, for
example, offset its own emissions by helping set up a wind farm or establish a
tree plantation in another. Clearly it would be more desirable to have the
emitter deal with its emissions on site, but in the interests of producing a
'sellable' treaty, flexibility has had to be adopted. Many witnesses
acknowledged this, for example:
While [the Kyoto Protocol] is not a perfect tool at the moment
by any stretch of the imagination, it is the one global framework that we have
to build on.[12]
In our view, it is preferable to join with the vast majority of
developed countries in ratifying the Kyoto Protocol and working steadily,
through successive Conferences of the Parties at which we would be full
participants rather than mere observers, to improve its effectiveness. It is the
one global framework we have to build on.
The majority report counters that we have the example of a
truly global international treaty in the form of the Montreal Protocol on
Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, and that we should be looking to something
similar to handle climate change. The Montreal treaty was originally signed in
1987, and amended in 1990 and 1992, under the aegis of the United Nations
Environment Program. It is true that it has the support of developing countries
and covers 82 per cent of global emissions of ozone-depleting substances.
However, as Dr Hamilton pointed out, it must be remembered that controlling
ozone-depleting substances is, comparatively speaking, a relatively simple
matter and alternative technologies were available at minimal cost.[13]
Hence it is not a valid comparison with the climate change scenario.
The Kyoto Protocol would adversely affect our economic interests and jobs
A misleading argument sometimes used in support of
non-ratification is that by imposing the costs of constraining our own
emissions on our industries, we would hand a competitive advantage to our
immediate trade competitors, including those in nearby developing countries. It
has also been wrongly suggested that, in order to avoid the likely increased
costs of operating in Australia under the Kyoto Protocol, companies might opt
to relocate. However, neither of these arguments is persuasive.
Firstly, the Government has stated publicly it intends to meet Australia's
Kyoto target of reducing greenhouse emissions to 108% of 1990 levels.
Consequently, no additional costs should be imposed on industry if we ratify
the Protocol. Indeed, as the economic modelling cited in the majority report
suggests, (para 3.18) meeting Australia's 108 per cent emissions target for the
first commitment period would be significantly less expensive under the
ratification option. However, this is impossible to quantify for future
commitment periods, given the uncertainties involved.
Secondly, if we ratify the Protocol and it comes into effect,
the Australian Government will have opportunities to lower the costs of meeting
the target. For example, Australian companies may be able to meet their
obligations by undertaking low-cost abatement activities in developing countries.
These opportunities will be lost if the Protocol does not enter into force.
Thirdly, if the Government ratified the Protocol, it would send
a signal to industry of the need to reduce emissions, which in turn, would
provide a stimulus to the renewable energy sector. Conversely, as Ms Anthony
put it, '(n)ot signing the Kyoto protocol does not really send a signal to our
domestic market that we need to be tightening our belts with regard to energy
efficiency or fuel switching – moving towards cleaner fuels such as wind or
solar. Therefore there is less incentive to do something about it.'[14]
Renewable energy industries tend to be more labour-intensive
than fossil fuel based industries, so there are more jobs, more widespread jobs
and, often, more satisfying jobs. Ms Anthony of the Australian Wind Energy
Association asserted that 'for every job in the coal industry, there are six
jobs in the renewable industry'.[15]
At present, as Mr Brazzale pointed out, the cost of renewable technologies is
roughly twice that of coal-fired electricity, but is coming down at the rate of
some five per cent per annum. The accepted experience curve for emerging
technologies such as solar and wind shows a cost reduction of between 15 and 20
per cent for every doubling of installed capacity.[16]
If Australia ratified the Kyoto Protocol, it would give a significant boost to
the sustainable and renewable industry sector, providing a significant domestic
market to provide a base for sustainable manufacturing and assisting its export
potential, with the competitive advantage of being able to utilise directly the
JI and CDM flexibility mechanisms.
Fourthly, the claim that companies will relocated to countries
that are not subject to binding emissions targets is unsubstantiated. Indeed,
the evidence suggests countries with higher environmental standards have higher
rates of investment and growth than countries with lower standards. While
meeting the Kyoto targets may impose costs on some industries, these costs are
likely to be offset by the economic climate, better infrastructure and
political stability found in countries like Australia. As Ms Wain of
Environment Business Australia stated:
The important thing to bear in mind about a lot of companies
threatening offshore relocation is that there are very few companies with a
reputation to protect who are going to seek a licence to pollute from their
shareholders, investors, customers, bankers and insurers and leave a very
stable economic and political regime to seek a marginal decrease in energy cost
– abandoning sunk assets at the same time ... the threat of companies going
offshore because of the shadow cost of carbon cannot be taken seriously – it
cannot.[17]
Finally, whatever the costs, they need to be set against the
as-yet unquantified costs of probable species loss, downturn in tourism from
coral bleaching and lack of snow, higher incidence of insect-borne disease,
insurance claims, and so forth brought about by climate change. This report
also accepts the view of representatives of the renewable and sustainable
energy industries who pointed out that it was impossible to compare the true
cost of renewables to fossil fuels. The emerging technologies have all their
up-front costs such as early market penetration, research and development and
finance access to deal with, transparently, while the subsidies and
preferential contracts associated with the fossil fuel industries are hidden
from market view.[18]
We note that the federal Government's failure to take a strong
lead in addressing climate change has resulted in unilateral action by some
States. New South Wales, for example, has introduced mandatory emissions
targets for electricity retailers.[19]
While applauding the initiatives of those States, we call on the Government to
work with the States to deliver national legislation and a regulatory framework
to underpin emissions trading.
Technology can solve global warming and allow us to continue to exploit our
fossil fuels (we can have our cake and eat it too)
Australia is remarkably rich in natural resources such as coal.
Some 85 per cent of our electricity is generated from black and brown coal.
Electricity generation in turn accounts for some 70 per cent of our stationary
energy emissions.
While fossil fuels will continue to provide base load capacity
for some time, the Government’s failure to adequately support development of
the renewable energy industry is condemned.
As the majority report points out, every effort is being
directed at developing zero- or low-emission coal and geosequestration (the
capturing and storing of greenhouse gases underground). As Ms Wain of
Environment Business Australia stated:
We like the concept of geosequestration and clean coal
technology, but can it be brought in at a cost that is similar to or lower than
renewable energy, with the incremental growth in markets and the scale of
demand which will reduce the cost of renewable energy quite significantly?
Personally, I do not see us being able to capture CO2, store and
compress CO2, inject CO2 underground or in deep ocean
outfalls and maintain it there all for the same cost of developing renewable
energies.[20]
It is noted that no evidence provided to
the Committee supported a cost for zero emissions coal as low as the $10 per
tonne of CO2 abated claimed by the Chief Scientist and the Beyond
Kyoto report of the Prime Minister's Science, Engineering and Innovation
Council.
Mr Ric Brazzale, representing the Australian Business Council
for Sustainable Energy, commented further on the comparative costs.
Technologies such as wind and solar are very low penetration, so cost is
relatively high – roughly twice the wholesale price of coal-fired electricity.
Costs are falling, between 15 and 20 per cent with every doubling of installed
capacity. By comparison, he cited estimates from the International Energy
Agency that advanced coal technology and geosequestration will cost from $40
to over $100 per tonne. He also pointed out that, while there was a global
market for renewable energy, that was not the case with geosequestration:
There are very few countries to which we can export
2,000-megawatt coal plants and billions of dollars of wells and infrastructure
to bury the carbon. It may be an option in some places in Australia, but we do
not think that it will be a major contributor to the global problem.[21]
Regardless of cost, other issues need
to be considered:
Even the advocates of geosequestration see that it
will be a good 20 years before it can contribute in any major way. Of course,
20 years is too long to wait. From my perspective, to put all our eggs in the
geosequestration basket, which seems to be the federal government's preference,
thereby withdrawing funding from renewable energy and energy efficiency to
invest in this highly speculative technology seems to me to be extreme folly[22]
Ms Reynolds also raised concerns of CANA members as to the
safety of the technique.[23]
Technological innovation has been of inestimable benefit to Australia
over the years, and has improved the efficiency of our industrial processes. It
is of significant concern to us that policy decisions are being taken today
based on unproven technology and uncertain cost, when other more realistic
options are ignored.
We can meet our 108 per cent target and reduce growth in greenhouse gas
emissions by domestic action and without the need to ratify the Kyoto Protocol
Prime Minister Howard has stressed the importance of domestic
strategies as our response to global climate change:
[the government has agreed to] develop and invest in
domestic programs to meet the target of limiting greenhouse gas emissions to
108 per cent of 1990 emissions over the period of 2008-2012. [24]
The Government’s position is absurd. They say they will meet
the target but not reap the benefits.
The Government’s domestic strategies have involved an
undertaking to invest one billion dollars on a suite of programs, including
most importantly the Greenhouse Gas Abatement Program. Other programs
initiated by the Government include the voluntary Greenhouse Challenge Program,
the Renewable Remote Power Generation Program and the Alternative Fuels
Conversion Program. The vast majority of these programs were forced upon the
Government by the Australian Democrats during the GST negotiations.
As noted above, Australia appears likely to meet its 108 per
cent target. However, this is largely attributable to the fortuitous
unilateral land-clearing stance of Queensland Premier Peter Beattie. In
relation to the Government's greenhouse programs, a recent performance audit by
the Australian National Audit Office, The Administration of Major Programs:
Australian Greenhouse Office, Audit Report No. 34, 2003-2004, has
highlighted a number of serious issues about their implementation and
effectiveness. The audit noted that the greenhouse funding was considerably
underspent, partly because of the long lead times required to establish
projects, and hence this raised serious doubts about the achievement of
abatement results before the Kyoto commitment period. The audit also raised
serious questions about whether the abatement claimed to be achieved by the
programs was beyond 'business as usual' projections.
Support for the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol
The majority report fails to
acknowledge the groundswell of public support for Australia's ratification of
the Kyoto Protocol. In its submission to the Committee, Greenpeace cited the
results of its opinion polls which showed between 71 per cent and 80 per cent
support levels for ratification.[25]
Recommendation
In our view, the case against the
ratification of the Kyoto Protocol has not been made out, whereas the case for
ratification is not only self-evident but pressing. We recommend that:
the Kyoto
Protocol Ratification Bill 2003 [No.2] should be proceeded with forthwith.
Senator Kate Lundy
ALP Senator for the ACT
Senator Sue Mackay
ALP Senator for Tasmania
Senator Andrew Bartlett
Australian Democrats Senator for Queensland
Senator Bob Brown
Australian Greens Senator for Tasmania
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page