The Government's climate change policy adviser, Professor Ross Garnaut, said last year that the coming Copenhagen Conference would bring an agreement on global measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
The objective is stabilisation of global carbon dioxide levels.
This requires annual world emissions below three tonnes a head.
For countries such as Australia and the US, with annual emissions of more than 16 tonnes a head, this means a four-fifths cut.
Most other rich countries emit about 10 tonnes a head.
Even France, with its nuclear and hydro-based electricity supply, is at six tonnes.
India emits less than 1.5 tonnes a head, but China's emissions already exceed four tonnes a head.
No authority now considers a meaningful agreement at Copenhagen possible.
Stabilisation requires developing countries, which are now responsible for almost half global annual carbon dioxide emissions, to participate in cuts. They refuse to do so until their living standards have reached the levels enjoyed in Western countries.
Attempting to impose cuts on them, as the French Government advocates, would unravel trade agreements that are vital to living standards.
Carbon dioxide emissions are inevitable outcomes of coal, gas and oil use. As energy consumption fuels living standards, carbon dioxide emissions tend to be higher for richer countries.
In many countries, recession has led to declines in production -- and hence carbon dioxide emissions -- but, providing recovery takes place, this will only be temporary.
Countries such as Australia, with access to cheap coal and the capabilities to convert it efficiently to electricity, emit more carbon dioxide than others.
However, this does not mean we are an irresponsible "polluter".
Aside from doubts about whether carbon dioxide emissions will increase temperatures, such claims ignore the reasons for different countries' emission levels.
Low-cost energy suppliers such as Australia are major exporters of energy-intensive products like aluminium.
Other countries are therefore sub-contracting some of their energy use and carbon dioxide emissions to Australia.
Some countries have low carbon dioxide emissions in relation to their levels of income because they have access to considerable hydro-electricity resources or have adopted nuclear power.
Ironically, in Australia the most vocal proponents for lower emission levels become apoplectic in the face of calls for more hydro power and demonise nuclear power.
Instead they promote wind power, which costs three times as much as conventional sources and, if used extensively, would impose even higher costs and cause blackouts.
They also argue the merits of new technologies that may be carbon-lite but are yet to be invented.
And they line up for campaigns like "Switch off Hazelwood".
Such campaigns, if successful, would bring about the dismantling of the low-cost electricity that forms the backbone of Victorian industry's competitive advantage, as well as delivering the world's cheapest electricity to households.
Hopefully sense will prevail.
This requires the Australian Government to avoid actions like closing down our existing sources of cheap electricity -- actions that would undermine the economy.
Instead it should await development of low-cost alternatives, which it claims will be available soon.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment