Over the next two weeks the justification for introducing a carbon tax will unravel as securing a new international carbon cutting agreement collapses.
This afternoon Australia time, an attempt to find a continuous international agreement to cut greenhouse gases will commence in Durban, South Africa. The key focus of the conference is to negotiate the framework for cutting emissions after the Kyoto Protocol expires at the end of next year. No one is expecting much.
Over the past few weeks disengaged governments have deliberately lowered expectations to avoid a repeat of the spectacular collapse of morale following the Copenhagen summit.
What's being ignored is the structural impossibility of securing an agreement now and even in 2020. The modern international system was designed after World War II on the principle that rich countries designed the rules but also carried all the responsibilities. By comparison poor countries got little say and weren't expected to do any heavy lifting.
That changed in the 1990s. Developing countries have rallied and are now exercising their voice, but still don't accept the same level of responsibility. That spirit is enshrined in the principles of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
The convention text states that action should be taken ''on the basis of equity and in accordance with their [countries] common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities [and] accordingly [developed countries] should take the lead in combating climate change''.
The proposition appears reasonable: developed countries are those that have emitted the most to date and become rich in the process, therefore they should take the lead.
But during this century developing countries will be the source of emissions growth and it's politically unsellable in democracies that countries should take on a heavy cost burden while others free ride.
That nexus is at the heart of the ongoing deadlock in international climate talks. And it's not alone.
The same problem exists in the World Trade Organisation. The 2001 Doha Development Agenda is near collapse because developing countries want developed countries to cut their subsidies and tariffs while they keep their own barriers in place. The fact that their own trade barriers are harming their economies is immaterial to the debate. And the same pattern exists in most multilateral forums including the UN's health, intellectual property and even biological diversity bodies.
Considering cutting man-made greenhouse gas emissions is only a worthwhile exercise if every country pulls their weight: the challenge is unsolvable with an equity-based approach.
Accepting that there'll be no new international agreement soon, Climate Change Minister Greg Combet said in a speech to the Australian National University on Friday that our government ''would be prepared to accept a second commitment period for Kyoto [post-2012] if it were matched by parallel commitments by other major emitters''.
Combet's words are cheap. Combined, China and the US contribute more than a third of the world's emissions and have already stated they won't join.
China has already stated that Kyoto ''is the cornerstone of the climate regime and its second commitment period is the essential priority for the success of Durban'' while also making it clear they won't be a party to it.
Meanwhile the US is seeking to unwind commitments they've already made. At the Cancun summit last year rich countries agreed to finance a $US100 billion-a-year ($103bn) Green Climate Fund to help developing countries adapt to a changing climate. Earlier this week the US lead negotiator, Todd Stern, advised the US wasn't happy with the design compromising their paid-up membership.
The most likely outcome of the conference is a reviewed timeline for securing a global agreement.
Meanwhile Australia is spruiking a negotiating deadline for the middle of this decade to have an operational agreement by 2020. Even that's ambitious.
As the ANU's Stephen Howes and Frank Jotzo wrote on these pages the focus is to get ''bottom-up'' momentum through carbon markets to push international action.
Combet clearly agrees. In the same ANU speech Combet claimed that ''international carbon markets are growing irrespective of the developments in the UN negotiations''.
Combet's statement is factually incorrect. A World Bank report released earlier this year highlighted that carbon markets are in recession because of the lack of confidence of a new international agreement post-2012.
The earlier expansion of the number of carbon markets is headed in the same direction, as political resolve wanes in the face of limited international agreement. Following the re-election of the John Key-led National government in New Zealand, their impotent emissions trading scheme will be made even weaker.
Equivalent mumbles are now appearing in Europe.
It's hardly surprising. Last week a study from Swiss global banker UBS reported the European scheme has wasted $287bn without cutting emissions.
According to data from the UN climate change body, almost all of Europe's emissions reductions were achieved through decreased industrial activity caused by the global financial crisis. The only country where carbon markets are expanding because of domestic policy is Australia under Combet's leadership.
All of this is bad news for Australia's carbon tax. The carbon tax was passed through the parliament on the myth that other countries would take equivalent action reducing the economic harm it will impose. Combet said we should expect ''Durban will be one stepping-stone along the path''. He should be careful where he steps. The conference's stepping stones are more likely to be lily pads.
No comments:
Post a Comment