Asia-Pacific, Climate Change, Development & Aid, Environment, Global, Global Geopolitics, Headlines, Poverty & SDGs

CLIMATE CHANGE – AUSTRALIA: Rudd Urged to Lead Binding Targets at Bali

Stephen de Tarczynski

MELBOURNE, Dec 10 2007 (IPS) - While Australia’s newly-elected Labour Party (ALP) government will ratify the Kyoto Protocol – even receiving a standing ovation at the United Nations climate change conference in Bali – Prime Minister Kevin Rudd may oppose moves to commit rich nations to specific targets on cutting greenhouse gas (GhG) emissions.

Delegates at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) on the Indonesian resort island – which focuses on developing a framework under which negotiations for a post-Kyoto climate change agreement can proceed – have been working on a draft declaration for the Dec. 3-14 meeting.

Among the statements in the draft is a call for industrialised nations to commit to GhG emission cuts of between 25 and 40 percent on 1990 levels by 2020, a target opposed by countries including the United States and Japan.

Australia also appears likely to oppose the inclusion of a specific target in the conference’s final declaration. Rudd, who will attend the conference’s ministerial talks on Wednesday, has said that it would be “irresponsible” for Australia to commit to a medium-term.

Instead, Rudd says he will wait for the report by the economist, Prof. Ross Garnaut – who was commissioned to undertake a study by the ALP earlier this year, when the party was still in opposition – on the impacts of climate change on Australia’s economy before committing to a specific target.

Rudd’s position appears unambiguous despite reports that, on Dec.5, Australia’s delegation at the Bali meeting agreed to support emission cuts of 25 to 40 percent for industrialised nations.

Ben Pearson, energy campaigner with Greenpeace Australia-Pacific, told IPS that “the conference is waiting with baited breath to see what Kevin Rudd will do’’.

Tony Mohr, Climate Change Campaigner for the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF), told IPS that “there’s no problem at all with the Australian government waiting for the Ross Garnaut review and taking the time to assess the economic impacts of a particular target.”

But Mohr argues that Australia can support cuts of 25 to 40 percent and then determine the extent of its contribution “over the next year or so”.

“I’m optimistic that Australia can join the international community with countries such as New Zealand, the European Union, Britain and Germany and support this particular range as the basis of negotiations from this point on,” Mohr told IPS from Bali, where he is attending the conference.

Despite Rudd’s stated position on the 2020 targets that Australia will wait for the Garnaut report – the draft of which is expected to be released in June of next year – Greenpeace’s Ben Pearson is hopeful that Australia will agree to the 25 to 40 percent cuts.

“Australia knows enough already to commit to the 25 to 40 percent range for industrialised countries. That range is based on the best science by the world’s climate scientists,” Pearson told IPS.

The Greenpeace campaigner, who is also in Bali, warned that the Garnaut report should not be ‘’used as some kind of an excuse for Australia not playing a leadership role here this week’’.

Rudd has spoken of his desire to take on a leadership role in bridging the gap between China and the west on climate change. Last week, after initiating Australia’s ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, Rudd held a 20 minute phone conversation in Mandarin with Chinese Prime Minister, Wen Jiabao, on climate change.

Pearson says that Rudd has a “perfect opportunity” to demonstrate his leadership at the climate change conference.

“What we really need to see this week at Bali is Kevin Rudd coming out (and) committing Australia explicitly to the 25 to 40 percent range, and from that I think that will begin to build those bridges with the developing world,” he says.

“It will put the world on track to avoid dangerous climate change,” adds Pearson.

The ACF’s Tony Mohr agrees.

“Australia plays a pivotal role in these negotiations because we could be in a position where we could build that bridge and bring both developing countries and developed countries together on an agreement,” says Mohr.

But while Australia seems likely to reject any binding targets for industrialised countries, it is taking a tough stance on major polluters in the developing world.

Federal Trade Minister, Simon Crean, said that Australia’s task is two-fold: to commit to binding targets for GhG emission cuts at an “appropriate time”, but also to obtain binding commitments by developing countries such as China and India.

Mohr says that China has suggested that it “will commit to a clear, measurable reduction in their greenhouse gas emissions so [that] a lot of developed countries, in good faith, support that range of 25 to 40 percent.”

Under the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012, developing countries including China and India – who are two of the world’s heaviest emitters of greenhouse gases overall but on a per capita basis emit far less than Australia – are not bound to specific targets of GhG emissions.

“So, if Kevin Rudd is serious about building bridges with China and obtaining clear-cut commitments from China for reducing their own emissions, the best way to do that is to give Australia’s support for that 25 to 40 precent range,” says Mohr.

Ben Pearson says that Greenpeace views binding targets for developing countries as a step forward.

“We certainly believe that developing countries, especially big ones, should sign on to measurable and verifiable policies that will see emissions reduced,” Pearson told IPS.

But he says that developing countries’ targets should not be at the same level as the binding targets for rich countries like Australia.

“The fact is the industrialised countries are responsible for most of the additional carbon in the atmosphere at the moment. They are also the wealthiest countries in the world,” Pearson told IPS. “They’re the ones who should take the first step in reducing emissions. Developing countries will then follow.’’