The Guardian 25 January, 2006
Canberra emits bad policies
Peter Mac
Australia’s hottest year on record was 2005. The CSIRO has attributed this to global warming, which now threatens life on Earth. Nevertheless, the Howard Government opposes moves to reduce the emission of carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas which is emitted by burning coal or petroleum and which causes global warming.
The government’s position was demonstrated at the recent Hong Kong conference of the Asia-Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and Climate (APCDC), attended by government representatives from Australia, the US, China, India and Japan. Also represented were executives from the Australian Aluminium Council, the Australian Coal Association, BP Australia, the Cement Industry Federation and the Business Council for Sustainable Energy — corporations likely to be affected by moves to cut emissions.
No environmental organisations were invited.
At the conference Howard announced a government grant of $100 million to assist measures to counter global warming. However, only $25 million went to initiatives involving renewable energy sources.
It appears that corporations responsible for greenhouse gas emissions intend to block or delay enforcement of any emission cutbacks. The longer the delay, the more the companies profit — and the greater is the long-term impact of global warming.
For example, investigation of geosequestration, (an unproven technology in which liquefied CO2 is to be buried in underground cavities), could take between 10 and 40 years. Howard favours this technology, but scientists have warned that even a ten-year delay in action is far too long.
Although the conference discussed industrial initiatives to avert climate change, it treated business opportunities from global warming more seriously. US Energy Secretary Sam Bodman stated proudly: "… it is the private sector that makes the investment decisions … that develops the technology … that gains the benefits from those investments." Foreign Minister Alexander Downer boasted that the conference "redefines the international climate change and energy debate".
The Bureau of Agricultural and Resources Economics has estimated that even if all the conference decisions were implemented, by 2050 emissions would still be 17 percent higher than in 2001, whereas scientists have advocated a 70 percent reduction. And there’s no guarantee of implementation. Implementation of the decisions is entirely voluntary.
Energy corporation representatives emphasise that even if proposed initiatives proved feasible, the companies would not implement them without "incentives".
Tony Wood, an Origin Energy executive commented, "There’s absolutely no incentive for business to adopt (such technologies)." In short, the corporations want tax breaks or other concessions for refraining from poisoning the world.
In fact, corporations are unlikely to take any positive action unless threatened by penalties. Last year a UN report declared that new technologies would provide little climate protection unless CO2 emissions were priced (i.e. taxed) at a minimum of $25-$30 per tonne.
The Japanese Government, whose representative attended the conference, is already taxing emissions. The Chinese Government, which was also represented, is busily investigating wind and other alternative energy sources which the Australian Government has trivialised.
Howard’s solution
Howard will not enforce emission cuts. Instead, the government is pinning its hopes on geosequestration.
Energy corporations and other culpable industries expect that this approach will excuse them from having to cut emissions at the smokestack.
However, the technology is almost certainly non-feasible, because of the high collection and liquefaction costs, the huge volume of CO2 waste, and the frequently vast distances between CO2 emission centres and appropriate disposal sites. CO2 waste from a Newcastle industrial centre would have to be transported at great cost, and with enormous exhaust pollution, to the nearest appropriate disposal sites, which lie west of the Great Dividing Range.
After the talk
Following the conference, Minister for Industry Ian Macfarlane pointed to scientific disagreements about global warming. There are certainly different estimations over the speed at which global warming will take effect, but there is overwhelming agreement that the process is underway.
Macfarlane described India and China as "major emitters", but ignored the US, the world’s biggest emitter in absolute terms, and Australia, the biggest per capita.
The government has phased out subsidising the installation of alternative energy sources, and continues to ignore calls for a humane policy regarding the people of Pacific Islands, which are being swamped by rising seas.
Meanwhile, Australian scientists have noted a decrease in seal populations on Antarctica’s Macquarie Island. This is probably due to global warming, which is already having a devastating effect on Arctic wildlife, but which until now was not thought to be having the same effect in the Antarctic.
And the government’s response? It has now decided to cut the number of its scientific staff on Macquarie Island, who will no longer be able to trace further effects on the island’s wildlife.