News Hit

Climate change is an issue of major environmental concern for the global community. From the melting of polar ice regions, to extreme heat waves, and the increase in numbers and intensity of natural disasters; followed by increasing costs, property damage and lost productivity, these serve as a warning of climatic trends to come. This essay aims to examine whether or not Australia, under the federal Rudd Labor government, should, under these environmental circumstances, have ratified the Kyoto Protocol, as well as exploring the mandate and expectations of the Kyoto Protocol’s framework. Furthermore, the implications of ratification and the underlying politics of the Kyoto framework are applied to concepts of international justice, rights to development, and economic sovereignty.

Climate change is the most important environmental problem that we face today. Europe’s fiercer summers, the diminishing Arctic ice-cap, the thawing tundra, Antarctica’s collapsing ice-sheets and glacier retreat: all indicate trends and changes even more worrisome than those predicted in 2001. Climate scientists are now revising these estimates upwards and considering the possibility of even greater shifts in climate occurring before the end of this century. The aim of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is to “prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system”. The Kyoto Protocol was established in 1997 to begin to meet this aim. The Rudd Labor government as the executive power of Australia does not have an obligation to ratify this Protocol, as the agreed frameworks fail to completely encompass the full spectrum of political and economic factors affecting states listed in Annex 1 (the first set of states to meet target greenhouse gas emission levels in the first commitment period) and Annex B (the second set of states to meet reduction levels in the second commitment period).

Environmental policy is seen to be different from other types of policy; it is unique because the fundamental issues of ecology are more crucial to the survival of species than the usual issues of regular politics. The implications of environmental policy are of major concern as it raises issues of uncertainty about the capacity of human activity in effecting the environment.

The greenhouse effect became accepted as a threat when scientists identified the mechanisms for gases interacting within the atmosphere, especially after analysis of meteorological data resulting in the identification of global warming in the late 1980’s. Evident increases in the numbers and intensity of floods, hurricanes, blizzards, droughts and cyclones, all contributed in fuelling public concern that the climate was drastically changing. Globally, governments established agreements for minimising the release of greenhouse gases with priority given to CO2. Current international agreements are directly resulting from these findings; the Montreal Protocol, and subsequently the Berlin and Kyoto Conferences.

Ecological problems have worsened as a result of unprecedented population growth, industrial expansion and increasing standards of living. The environment is global; as such it necessary that individuals and the nations they represent, seek to cooperate in managing environmental problems. These problems are not solely a by-product of the 20th century; industrialisation and major technological advances fashioned by the Second World War, made environmental changes more tangible. Recognition of this has culminated into various international bodies including the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP).

UNEP’s directive is to “monitor, coordinate, and to act as a catalyst for change”. UNEP has no executive powers, its primary activities stem from an emphasis on global environmental assessment, administrative activities and supporting processes. Climate change is a key feature of environmental concern for the UN, as a response the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was developed in 1992; simultaneously the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by UNEP and the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) to further examine climate change.

Through the Kyoto protocol, 38 highly industrialised states listed in Annex 1of the UNFCCC are required to alleviate their collective greenhouse gas emissions by 5 percent under their 1990 levels during the first 5 year commitment stage ending 2012. The Protocol was amended and redefined through subsequent conferences of the parties before finally coming into effect in February 2005.

Presently, emission alleviation targets are stipulated only for those industrialised states specified in Annex 1 of the UNFCCC and Annex B of the Kyoto Protocol. These lists were rationalised on the premise that industrialised states possessed the “responsibility, capacity and potential” to initially mitigate. However, there is the implicit expectation that developing states will adhere to emissions levels in subsequent commitment stages.

Though organisations are signing up to the Commonwealth’s Greenhouse Challenge by voluntarily reducing their emission of CO2; and local governments are committing to the International Program for Cities for Climate Change to reduce their emissions; there are strong indications that these actions are both too late and too limited to avoid significant changes in our climate. Evidence of these significant changes are manifest in the severe flooding of the Rhine and Danube rivers in 2002; the intense summer heatwaves in France, England and Italy during 2003; Hurricane Katrina in 2005 in the United States; and severe water shortages in the major cities of Australia in 2006. The latest data illustrates that the full extent of droughts is increasing, that melting of polar ice regions is accelerating, that 1998 and now 2005 have been the two hottest years on record and that the concentration of cyclones is increasing. Accompanied by escalating costs, property damage and lost productivity, this may serve as a warning of climatic trends to come. However there is conflicting empirical evidence that suggests climate change is not susceptible to human emissions.

Since initial colonisation environmental concerns have been paramount to the respective governments of the Australian state’s interests. An early environmental issue was water pollution. Within the first 5 years of settlement, regulations were passed to prevent the clearing of trees within 50 feet of water supplies. Public Health, an issue related to pollution, was also a problem for authorities. Health was a fundamental aspect in town planning laws through the segregation of noxious industries from residential areas, the provision of parkland, and the arrangements of streets to provide sufficient light and fresh air to houses. The 20th century Health Acts have also extended the philosophy of earlier legislation to establish further protection of man’s “resource”.

Over the last 100 years we have also seen the passing of legislation that recognises the value of plants and animals. Much of this activity was to ensure that many aspects of Australia’s natural resources would be maintained for the use of local resident. As such Australia has had a history of environmental concerns, each arising from an identified need or area of concern. This should be the case with the Kyoto Protocol; Australia has been named under Annex 1 and has signed the Kyoto Protocol. Yet Australian environmental conservation and protectionist agendas appear to be more concerned with the objective of securing “man’s right to resources”.

Australia’s designated Kyoto target by 2012 is an assuagement of greenhouse gases by 8%; with an estimated increase of 1.1% in total greenhouse gas emissions per year from 1990-2003. Total emissions are projected to rise by 10% over the next decade.

Australian environmental policy typically results from a response to an issue in need of addressing. Issues which have sparked such a response received recognition of a threat or at least a need to respond. Thomas (2007) identifies the issues addressed: pollution abatement where the enforcement of “damage and fines toinjunctive relief and strict liability”. Pollution control, which includes emissions standards through permit and license systems in order to reduce pollution at the source; and efficient waste disposal and recycling schemes to re-use materials thus reducing the need for further waste disposal. These can be perceived as attempts in reducing the need to exploit resources in order to curtail ensuing environmental effects. Greener technologies founded on renewable energy and an emphasis on bio-degradable materials potentially reducing energy needs and pollution levels. Australian policy presently focuses on environmental restoration, the maintenance and nurturing of ecosystems, this is preferable to losing resources and having to establish substitute sources.

Australia is a signatory to numerous conventions and agreements, notably the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Montreal Protocol, the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and the Kyoto Declaration and Plan of Action, as well as the Asia–Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. Additionally, Australia has implemented a National Greenhouse Strategy, which was developed by the commonwealth and all state and territory governments. The strategy is facilitated by raising knowledge and comprehension of greenhouse issues, minimising any increase of greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing greenhouse sink capacity. The key programs introduced moderate increases in greenhouse gases and rely on cooperative agreements with business and industry, as well as areas of government. As such Australia’s current execution of climate change strategies is conducive to support from industry, business, society and all areas of government and is adequate for securing Australia’s role in combating climate change without further commitment or restructuring.

The Australian government does not have an obligation to any other state when it comes to the Kyoto Protocol. That Australia has not ratified the protocol is not indicative of negligence; it solely reflects an adherence to certain principles of international justice. Australia’s justification for holding this view comes from various claims to unfairness and disparity between states’ expectations; as well as what can be viewed to be an unrealistic target level to achieve given the current reliance of the Australian economy on waste producing resources. Furthermore any claims that Australia is disregarding its environmental responsibility is spurious as Australia does have in effect various environmental acts and policies which are dedicated to sustainable development and ecological preservation over exploitation and depletion.

Moreover, international justice is not served by Australian ratification of the Kyoto Protocol in that the overall contribution of greenhouse gases from Australian emissions does not significantly impinge upon the composition of the Earth’s atmosphere, with net emissions from Australia predicted to peak at +10% by the year 2012. This is due to states such as the Chinese G-77 block not being included in the initial Annex 1 requirement of the Kyoto Protocol. Their combined greenhouse gas emissions eclipse or at least will by 2015 eclipse the Annex 1 states’ combined emission level. This includes Brazil, China and India, whose compliance with the Kyoto Protocol would denote economic disaster for the United States and consequently the Australian economy, who’s reliance on trade with both the United States and with Asia is vital to further development and economic sustainability.

If Australia was to ratify the Kyoto Protocol it would stand lose economically and for little scientifically proven risk, whilst other states, especially the major developing emitters; Brazil, China and India; would achieve economic progress that could potentially threaten the political and economic agency of Australia. These emergent states already represent a major challenge to Australia’s political and economic status.

Australian ratification of the Kyoto Protocol does not guarantee that other parties would not renege or renegotiate abatement targets in their favour and thus weaken the Protocol’s outcomes; this would be a waste of the Australian government’s time and efforts. The establishment of the Asia–Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (APPCDC) nullifies any need to adhere to the Kyoto Protocol. Created by the United States, supported by Australia, and with China, India, Japan and South Korea as its additional partners, the partnership advocates technology transfer as the method for minimising greenhouse gas emissions. This alternativetargetless climate framework, entices the developing major emitters to support this approach in preference to Kyoto, as such any involvement in the Kyoto Protocol by Australia would further be a waste of time and effort. This clearly demonstrates that regional agreements formed outside the framework of the Kyoto Protocol are more conducive in attracting support and maintaining adherence from member parties than any overarching and unsuitable international framework, especially in the case for Australian interests.

The incentive for individual states to fail to comply, or to renege on agreements is substantial. Other factors, such as institutional inability, social and industry resistance also contribute to adherence and dismissal. These factors and effects explain why Australia and other non Kyoto ratifying states maintain their current positions on climate change. Australia cannot be expected to ratify the Kyoto Protocol when other states fail to implement changes to emissions or lack the capacity to effectively contribute as efforts appear spurious in such instances.

Agreement to expand Annex B or to create a new annex would result in the newer states demanding significant assistance to facilitate their engagement whilst also providing for further development. The inclusion of non complying states would necessitate assistance involving substantial economic incentive and negotiated emissions growth caps. Integration into the Kyoto emissions market would grant new states a disproportionate allowance of carbon credits; their acquisition would affect a considerable transfer of resources from the other Annex B states ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. This disparity in resource allocation and concessions on emissions targets is unjust if states initially ratifying the Kyoto Protocol are to continue to adhere to expectations without further incentive. This is particularly true of Australia, where there is no such incentive to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.

The Rudd Labor government has no obligation to any ratify the Kyoto Protocol. The fact that Australia has not ratified the protocol is not suggestive of inattention or caution; it reveals a different perspective on international justice. Australia’s justification for abiding by this, comes from assertions that unfairness and disparity between states’ involvement; as well as what can be depicted as unrealistic objectives from the Kyoto Protocol framework, provided the dependence of the Australian economy on waste producing resources. Additionally any claims that Australia is shirking its environmental responsibility is erroneous as Australia does have in practise, sufficient environmental acts and policies that focus on sustainable development and environmental conservation, over exploitation and exhaustion of natural resources. Indeed, International justice is not served by Australian ratification of the Kyoto Protocol in that the total emissions of greenhouse gases from Australia itself does not impact greatly on the composition of the Earth’s atmosphere. This is due to states such as Brazil, China and India precluded from the initial Annex 1 grouping of the Kyoto Protocol. Their net greenhouse gas emissions overshadow the Annex 1 states’ emission levels. As such to keep with Australia’s national interests and in keeping with principles of international justice, the Rudd Labor government should not ratify the Kyoto Protocol.

REFERENCES:

Al Sabban, M., ‘The US Kyoto Alternative: A Saudi View’, pp. 1-3, in Jakeman et al, Kyoto Protocol, The first commitment period and beyond, 2001 pp. 176-197

Buhrs, T., and Christoff, P., ‘Greening the Antipodes?’ Environmental Policy and Politics in Australia and New Zealand, Australian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 41, No. 2, June , pp. 225–240

Christoff, P., ‘Post-Kyoto? Post-Bush? Towards an effective climate coalition of the willing’, International Affairs 82: 5, Blackwell Publishing Ltd/The Royal Institute of International Affairs, 2006, 831–860

Crowe, B. L., ‘The Tragedy of The Commons Revisited’, in Hardin, G., & Baden, J., Managing The Commons, W. H. Freeman and Company, 1997, pp. 53-64

Crowley, K., Environmental Policy and Politics in Australia, pp. 389-418

Dovers, S, 1995, “Information, Sustainability and Policy”, Australian Journal of Environmental Management, Vol 2, pp. 142-146

Dingle, A, The Victorians Settling, Fairfax Syme & Weldon, 1984

Hardin G., ‘The Tragedy of The Commons’, in Hardin, G., & Baden, J., Managing The Commons, W. H. Freeman and Company, 1997, pp. 16-30

Hardin G & John L., Managing The Commons, W. H. Freeman and Company, (preface) ‘The Evolution of Cultural Norms’, 1997, pp. ix-xii

Hardin, G., ‘Living on a Lifeboat’, in Hardin, G., & Baden, J., Managing The Commons, W. H. Freeman and Company, 1997, pp. 261-278

Manne, A. and Richels, R. G., US Rejection of the Kyoto Protocol: The Impact Compliance Costs and Co2 Emissions’, September 2001, pp. 1-12, in Jakeman et al, Kyoto Protocol, The first commitment period and beyond, 2001 pp. 176-197

Norton, P., ‘Tasmanian Forests, the Environment and Voting in the 2004 Australian Federal Election‘, Australian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 41, No. 4, December, pp. 597–614

Paehlke, R and Rosenau, P, 1993, “Environment/Equity: Tensions in North American Politics”, Policy Studies Journal, Vol 21, No 4, pp. 684

Papadakis, E., and Grant, R., 'The Politics of Right Handed Regulation: New Environmental Policy Instruments in Australia', Environmental Politics, 12:1, Routledge, 2003, pp. 27-50

Ostrom, V., and Ostrom, E., ‘A Theory for Institutional Analysis of Common Pool Problems’, in Hardin, G., & Baden, J., Managing The Commons, W. H. Freeman and Company, 1997, pp. 157-171

Roper, D. L., ‘Major Ice Ages, Ocean Currents and Global Warming’, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University press, Jan 2005, vol 24, pp. 64

Schelling, T. C., ‘The Cost of Combating Global Warming: Facing The Tradeoffs’ Foreign Affairs, 76: 8–14

Singer, P., One World: The Ethics of Globalisation, The Text Publishing Company, 2002, pp. 2, 17-57

Soroos, M., “The Global Environmental Facility”, in Atchia, M. and Tropp, S. (eds), Environmental Management Issues and Solutions, John Wiley and Sons Ltd., Chichester, 1995, pp. 54

Stretton, H, 1976, Capitalism, Socialism and the Environment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 4-5

Thomas, I., Environmental Policy: Australian Practice in the Context of Theory, The Federation Press, New South Wales, 2007 pp. 5, 23-40, 49-50, 54-66, 70-82, 168-199, 354-356, 410-432

Walker, K., The political Economy of Environmental Policy: an Australian introduction, University of New South Wales press, 1994