Australia appears to have defeated an effort by small Pacific states to argue for significantly tougher emissions reductions targets at the Pacific Island Forum — and then gagged efforts to discuss the issue publicly.
The Pacific Island Forum concluded yesterday calling for a global warming peak of two degrees and a reduction in global emissions by at least 50% below 1990 levels by 2050 — targets agreed by the G8 in July. Kevin Rudd promptly issued a press release about how the Forum had “issued a Call to Action to other world leaders, calling for urgent action to address the threat of climate change”. The resulting press coverage suggested Rudd leading a united Pacific community in getting serious about climate change.
It was a different story behind the scenes.
On Tuesday, leaders of the Smaller Island States group met for their normal pre-PIF discussion. The group includes the Cook Islands, Nauru, Niue, the Marshall Islands, Tuvalu, Palau and Kiribati. A recent OxFam report showed that many Pacific states were already having to address climate change impacts.
The SIS meeting called for a 45% reduction of greenhouse gases by 2020 to keep the global temperature rise below 1.5 degrees in a statement read by Niue’s Premier and SIS chair Toke Talagi. Talagi’s remarks were reported in regional media: “the small island states have agreed this morning that we must make a very strong stance with respect to greenhouse gas emissions. It’s taking a stance that’s already been taken by the AOSIS (Alliance of Small Island States) countries, which I understand is 45 percent of greenhouse gas reduction by 2020.”
However, unusually, no communiqué from the SIS meeting was issued by the PIF secretariat, which is under the direction of the Forum host, Australia. Instead, a bland press statement was released, which said nothing about greenhouse gas reduction targets.
On climate change, the SIS Leaders expressed their deep concern by the serious and growing threat posed by climate change to the economic, social, cultural and environmental well-being and security of the SIS countries. They reaffirmed their commitment to the ongoing development and implementation of Pacific tailored approaches to support national adaptation, mitigation and if necessary, relocation measures to combating climate change.
A joint statement by SIS Leaders called on the international community to cooperate and agree to targeted reductions to greenhouse gas emissions and called for the active assistance of both national and regional stakeholders with the support of development partners towards facilitating stronger regional coordination on climate change assistance.
On Wednesday, PIF delegates told representatives of an NGO attending the event that there was an issue over ‘conflicting communiqués” from the SIS meeting.
The Chair of AOSIS, who was attending Forum side-events, confirmed the AOSIS position, telling one event of the “need to ensure that global temperatures stabilise at less than 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels. Even at the current 0.7 or 0.8 degrees above pre-industrial levels, climate change is already delivering substantial damage to the most vulnerable.” He labelled a 2 degree rise “unacceptable”.
But yesterday the communiqué of the full PIF emerged, endorsing the far softer emissions targets agreed by the G8 in July, which are broadly consistent with the Rudd Government’s own target of a 60% reduction by 2050.
Samisoni Pareti of Islandsbusiness Online reported that the leaders of Marshall Islands, Kiribati and Tuvalu were quickly led through a side door at the end of the Forum’s press conference yesterday to avoid journalists.
Foreign Minister Stephen Smith and Climate Change Minister Penny Wong used the forum to announce a further allocation of previously-announced funding for climate change adaptation in the Pacific, handing out a further $50m for programs across the region. Based on events this week, it looks a lot like hush money.
The Department of Foreign Affairs referred Crikey’s questions to a Prime Minister and Cabinet official who refused to speak to us. The SIS media representative referred queries to the Forum Secretariat in Fiji, which could not be contacted.
Of course Australia can throw it’s weight around with the Pacific Island nations. They’re not as big as China. Of little importance to Rudd, Wong and Smith that their nations are already suffering indirectly from King Coal.
Of course they should be allowed to have their say, but somewhere in here we should mention that a reduction in greenhouse gases of 45% by 2020 is simply IMPOSSIBLE. I imagine this would require the entire world to shut down its coal-fired power stations, transfer to renewable power and abandon the use of petrol-driven cars. And to achieve all of this in ten years time, when the renewable power sources are not yet capable of delivering base load power. And China is building coal-fired power stages at the rate of Australia’s entire industry every four months, if Martin Ferguson is to be believed.
And I take it you mean a 45% reduction in emissions, not a 45% reduction in the CO2 content of the atmosphere.
It ain’t going to happen. No politicians in the world are going to enforce this scale of change, which will lead to the loss of countless thousands of jobs, on the basis of some unvalidated computer models.
This debate is completely divorced from reality.
It is a tragedy for the people of the small island nations that countries like Australia are populated by people who “imagine” that it is impossible for us to do what it would take to rescue their homelands from annihilation. It is not impossible to reduce emissions by that much, and to fail to do so is a crime.
What is “completely divorced from reality” are those leaders and followers in developed countries to imagine that this is simply another political game of compromise. What I found sad about the Pacific Island Forum was that Rudd described the need for climate action as a matter of “national survival” in the Pacific. It is that, of course, but much more importantly, it is a matter of cultural survival and, for many, a matter of personal survival. Some of them have already started making plans to uproot entire communities. Could the Australians reading this please take a moment to imagine how devastating that is?
MichaelT perpetuates all of the usual myths about this question — not the least of which that it is all China’s fault, when in fact, China is doing a hell of a lot more about kick-starting a renewable energy revolution that australia is. It’s not costing them thousands of jobs, its making thousands of jobs. We have lost thousands in our failure to commit to renewables in any serious way. Of course it means shutting down coal power stations — but it also means starting up many more renewable ones.
Fiddling about at the edges, as Rudd is, is a lose-lose strategy. We will get runaway climate change and miss out on the jobs and economic renewal we could get from radically changing our ways. The only credible way forward is to commit to at least 40% cuts, and get on with the job.
As usual our political leaders make the sort of gut-wrenching, gorge-raising, limp-wristed and boring speeches they always make prior to doing nothing whatsoever about a major problem.
Government voices off-screen to be heard saying.”WTF does it matter? These people are not numerous enough to invite racial hatred amongst Australian hoons. So, as soon as their islands and homes become unworkable we’ll just bring them to mainland Oz”.
“But wont they mind giving up their land?”
“Nonsense, they’ll love Queensland”.
If there is any consolation, it will be about the time these islands go under at about the time when Australia goes under, on all it’s cities and towns which are exposed to the sea.
Being a despicable person I see a window for outright chicanery. Blackmail! Assure the inhabitants-and mean it-we’ll do everything they want. Provided they all vote to condemn the obscene practice of Japanese whaling. For purely scientific purposes of course.
Australia shouldn’t be throwing its weight around, and KRudd needs to learn his place in this world. Whilst we need to reduce carbon emissions a 45% reduction on 2000 emissions levels by 2020 is absurd to say the least.
Producing electricity makes up roughly 33% of all emissions in Australia. If over the next 10 years we were to replace all of those power stations with all “eco friendly” stations that use renewable energy, can you imagine the up-front cost? Where will the government/private sector get the billions they need to build these plants? If this money is from the government, great – where do you want to sacrifice, health, education or national security? If the money comes from the private sector, where is the proof they will get any return on their money that they invest?
Another area that produces a lot of carbon emissions – transportation. If there was adequate public transport provided in Australia at a reasonable cost people would use it. I don’t use public transport because it will take me 3 hours by train to get to my university that takes me 40 mins to drive to. As for busses, theres only one a day and its at double seating capacity, with many people left in the lurch every day.
There needs to be a gradual change in the way we do things, whether or not this climate change fad lasts. George, you say that China is kick-starting the renewable energy revolution … then why is it expected to almost tripple its 1990 Co2 emissions by 2025? True it is doing a lot compared to, say, Australia, but they are still increasing their carbon emissions. Any decrease in Australia’s will be nothing compared to China’s expected increase