Australia should stop using China as a scapegoat for climate change inaction and recognise that it is one of the the world’s three biggest drags on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, according to the Gillard Government’s top climate advisor Ross Garnaut.
Speaking in Sydney yesterday to launch his second Climate Change Review update paper, Professor Garnaut said that, rather than moving ahead of the rest of the world, Australia is matched only by the US and Canada as a climate change laggard.
“Australia has been a significant drag on other countries’ mitigation efforts,” Professor Garnaut said. “Stopping being a drag is a big step forward for us.”
On the ABC’s Lateline last night, Labor Minister Anthony Albanese said he rejected Garnaut’s assessment that Australia was a laggard.
“I don’t think it’s a reasonable comment,” he said. “I think that Australia, certainly under this government, has taken climate change seriously. We’re determined to act on it. And that contrasts with the inaction and denial of the Howard government, who pretended that it didn’t exist.”
China, the world’s largest emitter, is often cast as a leading climate villain because it builds a new coal-fired power station every 10 days.
But Professor Garnaut singled out the rising superpower for praise yesterday, saying that China had voluntarily committed itself to stronger than expected emissions reductions targets.
In his 2008 review Garnaut said that a 35% reduction in China’s emissions intensity by 2020 would be a fair contribution to international action.
Yet China’s leaders have committed to 45% reduction by 2020 — a figure they have hinted could go higher if developed countries take strong action.
China has invested heavily in rooftop solar panels, electric cars, wind energy, new train lines and nuclear power as part of its stimulus package, Professor Garnaut said.
Professor Garnaut urged Australians not to underestimate their nation’s influence on overseas efforts to tackle climate change despite our relatively small population and low overall contribution to global emissions (less than 2%).
He said the rest of the world looks to Australia for leadership because of our highest per capita emitter ranking, reputation for effective economic reforms and the fact we are more vulnerable than most to the risks posed by global warming.
“Australian success in introducing a carbon price is likely to assist the United States and Canada to maintain momentum in policies to reduce emissions,” he said.
“We, and other developed countries, can through inaction exercise a veto over effective global mitigation.”
When asked whether it is appropriate for the Australian Government to base its greenhouse reduction targets on the outcome of international negotiations (with a 5 per cent target rising to 25 per cent if an ambitious deal is signed), Professor Garnaut said merely keeping up with the rest of the world would be significant progress for Australia.
While the economic risks of moving away from coal are often discussed, Professor Garnaut said the potential opportunities for Australia to prosper in a low carbon economy are too often overlooked.
He said Australia has “exceptional advantages” in its plentiful reserves of uranium, geothermal energy, natural gas and solar power — all likely to be key players in a carbon-constrained future. China has invested heavily in rooftop solar panels, electric cars, wind energy and nuclear power as part of its stimulus package, Professor Garnaut said. And despite Barack Obama’s failure to legislate an emissions trading scheme — “the US is far from sitting still”.
The Environmental Protection Agency is using regulatory pressure to close the dirtiest coal-fired power stations, leading to an increased use of gas for power generation.
While noting the much-hyped Copenhagen Climate Summit was a “diplomatic fiasco”, Professor Garnaut said that a binding global treaty was still needed to keep global warming under two degrees.
Without a deal, he said the famous “prisoner’s dilemma” — why should a country take action when it will allow others to freeload? — would be almost impossible to resolve. There is also no other way to create an effective global trade in emission entitlements.
There is one elephant in the living room that might lead to resolution, of a sort. It is the trade issue. The Chinese may decide, if they do end up investing heavily in sustainable energy, to use this as a prop for their sale of consumables in countries which are concerned about climate change.Their dependency on Australian minerals can be relocated – to Brazil, for example – and China has many agendas to fill through use of trade as diplomatic instrument around the world. Meanwhile, the US – assuming sane leadership prevails there (not a slam dunk, as they say) – may decide to make a virtue out of necessity, by reducing their use of foreign oil (an inevitable development anyway, given peak oil concerns) and placing themselves in the ranks of the emission reducers. France has already muttered darkly about going to the WTO on the issue of imposing carbon taxes on imports from high emitting nations and manufacturers – a possible way to gain some stealth protection for the local industries. And, no doubt, there are many other permutations on the trade protection argument . One thing is for sure: if Australia does nothing to reduce its own carbon footprint it will be an easy target for anyone looking for a bit of international trade action on the cheap.
In other words, it may not be merely irresponsible of us to refuse Garnaut’s call to try to take some international leadership on emissions reduction; it could end up being immensely stupid as well.
So the lead story ‘Garnaut on climate science’ has disappeared because it was a ‘sad story’ about how dishonest Australia’s leading climate change advisor was about climate science.
Now let’s have a story about how Australia’s policies will influence Canada and the USA! Is this guy serious?
No need to worry about China. They’re good greenies to be admired.
China has committed to a 45% reduction by 2020. That sounds impressive.
Why didn’t Garnaut mention that figure is relative to business as usual?
It’s not a real reduction, in real CO2.
It is in fact a massive increase.
Why didn’t Garnaut mention that China will double its energy production in the next 10 years, and most of that is by coal power? China will increase its coal power by the equivelant of Australia’s total coal power, every year for 10 years.
The Australian government is doing its best to prevent any coal power to ever be built here again.
Can Garnaut get anything right?
Tones,
You’re the one who doesn’t understand what’s going on. Of course it doesn’t stop you from being sarcastic about stuff you don’t understand. China has committed to a 45% decrease in energy INTENSITY against business as usual by 2020. They’ve never said they would cut their total emissions. It is quite likely that China WILL double it’s energy production in 10 years, and their per capita emissions will STILL be a small fraction of Australia’s.
Garnaut gets a lot right. It’s you who get’s stuff wrong. Probably because you’re arrogant enough to think that you know more than Garnaut!
GREGB
Well said. Only a complete idiot would misunderstand what the Chinese have promised; and only a fairly advanced idiot would think it necessary to explain the meaning of the undertaking to the rest of us.
As I interpreted Tones, it was more a reflection on why China is being held up as the poster child for climate action when in fact they are proposing no reduction in emissions. The western world has been trying for 20 years to get more efficient with its energy use, but we have found our emissions have still increased over that time (as growth of production has added to emissions at a faster rate than the intensity gains has reduced them). China is just following our bad example.
There is no doubt Australia needs to get on board with cleaner production, but using China as our guide is not the right way to go in my opinion. We need to compare ourselves with countries that are reducing emissions (not just mucking around with intensity) in a democratic and inclusive way.