The budget suggests that the Rudd Government still does not understand the seriousness of climate change. This is not because of the modesty of the greenhouse program allocation in the budget. In a way the absence of new spending is a good sign ─ the Howard Government for years bragged about its “$2.3 billion greenhouse program”, which was no more than a veil for concealing its inaction.
The proof of the Government’s commitment will become apparent only when it delivers on its promise of an emissions trading system and, crucially, the target it sets in the medium term.
However, we will know the magnitude of the task has truly sunk in when every major government decision is taken only after consideration of its greenhouse implications. This is not happening.
In one of the more dismaying signs that the Howard Government refused to understand the issue, Peter Costello was genuinely mystified when it was suggested that his GST package ─ which cut the price of diesel, reduced taxes on cars and increased the cost of public transport ─ should have anything to do with the environment.
Despite its obsession with getting petrol prices down, the Rudd Government is not so blind. Nevertheless, the large increase in the migration program announced in the budget, to take the number of permanent migrants to a record high of 190,300 in 2008-09, will make the Government’s greenhouse gas reduction commitments substantially more expensive and difficult to achieve.
There is a direct and strong relationship between population growth and growth in Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. In contrast to most other OECD countries, population growth in Australia has in the past been one of main factors driving growth in emissions.
The greenhouse gases of the average immigrant in Australia are about double those that would have been generated had that person not migrated. This is no surprise when we recognise that per person Australians have the highest greenhouse gas emissions in the industrialised world.
Modelling analysis a few years ago showed that, compared to a policy of zero net immigration, high immigration (set at 140,000 per annum) would see our emissions increase by an additional 16 per cent or 65 million tonnes by 2020. Since then, rates of immigration have increased to 177,000 this year and they are now set to grow even more.
Continued high rates of immigration will make it substantially more difficult for Australia to meet its medium and long-term emissions reduction target, the latter set by the Rudd Government at a 60 per cent reduction by 2050.
To meet our international obligations we will be required to meet an absolute emissions target. With a bigger population, this allocated level of total emissions will need to be spread across more people, thereby reducing the amount each of us will be able to emit. In other words, we will all have to do more; and with continued high immigration levels, we will have to do a lot more.
Yet as the Government looks down the barrel of major emission cuts between now and 2020, and even bigger cuts beyond that, population growth is the great unmentionable. No one will officially concede that there is a downside to high immigration.
In his interim report on climate change policy Ross Garnaut acknowledged the fact that population growth, in both fast-growing developing countries like China and mature economies like Australia, will mean higher rates of growth of greenhouse gas emissions. This will require more stringent, and more costly, programs to reduce emissions to the absolute levels required to minimize the chances of dangerous climate change.
However, Garnaut seems to accept that the rate of population growth cannot be one of the policy levers to be pulled to reduce emissions. I suspect he thinks it is simply not politically palatable so there is no point in talking about it.
If ever there were a policy problem that demanded a whole-of-government approach, climate change is the one. We are still a long way from it.
Actually, Clive there is a correlation between WORLD population growth and emissions. So by importing some more people, we are merely transferring emissions from one location to another, not adding to global emissions. Our gain will be someone else’s loss.
For Dave, counter intuitively my understanding is that most of our coal is exported to Japan and maybe India, and a relatively smaller proportion to China. Not sure if that will continue to be the case. Not sure about iron ore, probably high proportion to China. There was a discussion about this by an industry figure and Mark Colvan on ABC PM show about 2 months back re ‘commonly held belief as myth’. As for expansion of ports and roads promoting greenhouse emissions – this remains true with Port Botany and a $5 BILLION truck tunnel to service new super sized container tankers with indeed high ghg embedded products of high proportion from China. But as you imply the boom exports of coal to where ever will become blood money as wild storms take their toll in an increasingly variable/energised weather profile.
Michael T. As I pointed out in the article, when someone moves to Australia their greenhouse gas emissions approximately double. On average immigrants to Australia come from countries that have half of the per capita emissions of Australia. It is not simply a transfer but results in a net increase in global emissions.
Hear, hear!
I have been pushing this line in my family and circle of friends for a while now, and people fail to see why. But if the government taxes big cars, while at the same time making petrol cheaper, this has a net effect on commuter emissions of precisely zero. All policies must take account of green house emissions and their effect on them.
This is why the government’s infrastructure fund should build ports (for ferries to island holiday destinations), rail (to replace road freight, helping to bring down grocery prices by replacing expensive fuel with cheap electricity) and pretty much anything except roads.
I say again, hear, hear, Mr. Hamilton!
Clive, Michael T’s comment was the same as mine, which you responded to. I agree that half of the world’s emissions occur in the minority world (the “developed” world). Therefore, our response to climate change shouldn’t be to stop migration to keep people in the Third World and therefore keep their emissions down – our response should be to reduce our emissions. That means exporting renewable energy instead of coal, that means decarbonising our economy as quickly as possible by switching to 100% renewables (yes, it is possible to get renewable baseload power), that means reducing aviation (especially food aviation), that means energy efficiency.
It also means that we in the minority world who have contributed most to climate change should pour more money into majority world climate change mitigation, as they are suffering the most from CC and rising carbon dependence (global food crisis, Burma cyclones, rising Pacific tides, oil conflicts etc). Our climate response should be just.