CPA - The Guardian

At the Bali climate change conference in 2007, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was received with a standing ovation. The climate change denier, John Howard, had gone, Australia signed the Kyoto Protocol and promised strong action on climate change. Rudd’s reception then was in sharp contrast to that at the Copenhagen climate change conference in December 2009. Any illusions about the new Labor government’s policy were quickly swept aside when Rudd and Climate Change Minister Penny Wong showed their true colours as lackeys for the US administration and big business.

Rudd and Wong.

The chief negotiator for China and the G77 group of 132 developing countries, Lumumba Di-Aping, made the pertinent point that the Australian government had not matched its actions with its rhetoric.

“The message Kevin Rudd is giving to his people, his citizens, is a fabrication, it’s fiction,” he said, not mincing words.

“It does not relate to the facts because his actions are climate change scepticism in action.

“All that Australia has done so far is simply not good enough.”

Mr Di-Aping continued, “Australia is committed to killing Kyoto,” and accused Rudd of trying to gain a strategic economic advantage with the United States and the European Union.

His strong language – no spin doctoring here – reflects the frustration and desperation of developing country governments as their genuine attempts to negotiate emission reductions were constantly thwarted and undermined by the US, Australia and other developed countries.

He was right on all counts, and he was not the only representative of a developing country to see through Rudd and Wong. They were criticised by representatives of several other countries. In one working group, the Indian Minister refused to co-chair a session with Wong. No other developing country was willing to come forward and co-chair with Australia.

The government told the Australian public that the KP expires at the end of 2012. Not true, it has no expiry date.

When asked by a journalist during the Copenhagen conference whether he wanted the KP to continue to exist, Rudd responded: “…. We understand the importance of continuing Kyoto targets into the future. But the reality is the Kyoto Protocol itself is not enough. We know we need contributions from more than just the Kyoto parties. For example, we need a full contribution from the US, we need contributions from major developing economies.” (11-12-09)

Under the Bali Action Plan which was adopted in Bali in 2007, the US is legally obliged (it agreed) to make comparable emission reduction pledges to those made by other developed countries under the KP. The US is already roped in. As for the developing countries, they are parties to the KP; they are making contributions to climate change.

When asked by Kerry O’Brien (ABC 7.30 Report, 18-12-09) about the government’s attempts to sideline or replace the Kyoto Protocol, Wong said: “Kyoto had a lot that was good in it, but Kyoto alone, the Kyoto Protocol alone, is not going to get the outcome the world needs. It doesn’t cover sufficient of the world’s emitters. It doesn’t cover the United States, it doesn’t cover China. We have to have agreements that go beyond the Kyoto Protocol.”

The KP does cover China. It covers the major developing countries. The only major emitter or developed country it does not cover is the US. With over 190 countries covered by the KP, the government should ask the US to join it.

These lies were no slip of the tongue: they were repeated a number of times. For example, three days later Wong told another journalist: “The Kyoto Protocol doesn’t apply to developing economies.”

Rudd and Wong made no mention of the secret Danish Copenhagen Accord text before it was “parachuted” (as a Chinese representative described it) out of thin air onto the floor of the conference as it was nearing its conclusion. That was the “political agreement” they were after, that was their real agenda at Copenhagen – the secret text whose existence was denied by the Danish chair of proceedings, even after it had been leaked by the British Guardian newspaper.

Claims about the Copenhagen Accord

“This is about a political agreement and political commitment,” said Wong referring to the Copenhagen Accord. “This is the first time that both rich and poor nations have agreed to action on climate change.”

Wong said that it “has been the subject of a decision at the conference of the parties. It has been noted by the conference of the parties…” That is true but misleading. It was put to the conference for adoption. It was the “subject of a decision”. The decision was to “take note” of the document. There was no decision to adopt it. It is not a document under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change or the KP.

When asked by the media if there was any practical difference or any implication at all from the Accord being “noted” and not “adopted”, Wong again spun a tale: “Noting obviously references the fact that here is this agreement that the majority of the world supports. And that’s a good thing. And now we have to get on with giving effect to that Accord.”

It means nothing of the sort. There is no legal or moral basis to proceed with it as an outcome of Copenhagen.

“It is the first global agreement on climate change action between rich countries and poor countries,” Rudd told a press conference before it had been put to the conference for adoption.

Then after the conference had failed to adopt the CA he said, “There is a significant agreement on climate change... Globally agreeing for the first time that both rich and poor countries will act to bring down their greenhouse gas emissions.”

“It’s not perfect, but the alternative is complete collapse, and total climate change inaction.”

So much for the KP and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the two key international legally binding treaties on climate change to which Australia is legally bound.

The CA is an extremely weak document that undermines years of work by over 190 countries embodied in the KP and UNFCCC; tears up the basic principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” (see centre page of last week’s Guardian) and shifts much of the burden of climate change onto developing countries. Most seriously, it falls far short of what is required by science to save the human species.

“Complete collapse” was not the only alternative. The other option was for the developed countries to support, not sabotage the KP and negotiate in good faith. A genuine commitment to addressing climate change by the US, Australia and other developed countries could have resulted in a strong outcome at Copenhagen. As Lumumba Di-Aping pointed out, Rudd’s “actions are climate change scepticism in action”.

Thus Rudd, speaking about the next climate change conference in Mexico at the end of the year: “… there is much work to be done in taking this Copenhagen Accord through to its conclusion in a final treaty arrangement.” He arrogantly made this statement before the Copenhagen Accord had been presented to a plenary session of the conference for adoption.

The US, with the Australian government in tow, and its other major polluting Western allies, are pressing ahead with the CA and their plans for a new treaty. The only forces now capable of stopping them are the developing countries (a number of whom have been bought off) and the mass mobilisation and building of people’s movements to reveal the lies of Western governments and force them to return to the Kyoto Protocol. The political struggle on the ground in Western nations is critical for the survival of the human species which moved higher up the endangered species list after Copenhagen.

Next article – Capitalism’s failures and the struggle forward

Back to index page