Politics plagues Australian climate debate

By Peter Smith in Sydney
Published: March 16 2009 17:04

The bushfires that killed more than 200 people last month in Australia’s worst natural disaster in more than a century were “the fires of climate change”, says John Connor, head of the Climate Institute, an independent research group in Sydney.
Scorched earth: the bushfires have killed more than 200 people, devastated wildlife and caused widespread economic damage“We are the developed country most at risk of climate change. The extreme weather events of the last six months bring this home,” he says, citing drought, record high temperatures, cyclones and floods.
In spite of the alarming signs, government efforts to pass into law a comprehensive carbon trading scheme that it wants to begin in about 15 months have been plagued by a political battle.

The government has opted for a 5 per cent cut in emissions from 2000 levels by 2020, rising to 15 per cent if there is agreement by developed nations at the Copenhagen meeting of environment ministers this year.
But the opposition conservative parties want a delay, citing the global recession. Green politicians who hold crucial seats in the Senate have called for cuts of 25 per cent or more by 2020.
The conservatives and Greens have forced a two-month Senate inquiry that may derail the government’s plans to have the legislation passed in June.
Penny Wong, climate change minister, says the legislation is a “better than nothing” compromise. “We are building a vehicle that will take us to a low-pollution future. Some people want it to be a Ferrari but if you can’t have the Ferrari would you really have no vehicle at all?” she said last week.
The political battles, however, could lead to wholesale changes to the planned legislation, regarded by some experts as the broadest in the developed world.
Mark Lewis, head of carbon research at Deutsche Bank in London, says the scheme is “more fit for purpose” and better designed than that of the European Union in spite of a headline goal of a 20 per cent cut from 1990 levels by 2020.
“When you take into account the historical context, Australia has targets that are certainly not unambitious relative to the Europeans,” he says. The EU could commit to a bigger headline cut because of a “massive one-off reduction” from the closure of uneconomic power plants in eastern Europe.
“Australia is a resource- based economy . . . so you get a lot of emissions at source, which are put on Australia’s debit account,” he says. “Per capita emissions in Australia versus Europe are extremely high but that reflects Europe as an importer of commodities versus Australia that is an exporter of commodities.”
Mr Lewis praises Australia for helping trade-exposed industries and adds that its allocation of free permits is based on continuing production levels while that of the EU is based on historic production numbers.
Yet Mr Connor believes Australia’s headline target does not send a strong enough message to the rest of the world at a time when international consensus for strong emissions cuts is needed desperately.
“The 5 to 15 per cent target is a backward step for Australia in terms of its influence in Copenhagen,” he says.
“At the moment, we have barnyard scenes [political squabbling]. The government . . . will get there eventually [but] it will be bloody and brutal, and maybe not until next year.”
Although big business and heavy polluters have won significant concessions, with many saying a tough carbon trading scheme will force jobs offshore and curtail domestic investment, others point to the future cost to Australia of doing too little.
The weather events have eaten into exports and damaged mines and transport infrastructure. “The costs of climate change are already having a serious impact here. It is dramatically in our interest to do something about it,” Mr Connor adds.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009