Thursday, December 09, 2004
Credit where credit's (not) due

The current Howard government is not normally attributed by conservation groups as being an ecologically enlightened trailblazer, but there seems to be some cause to celebrate.

Throughout climate change negotiations (including "COP3" at Kyoto), Australia has been pilloried as being a rogue nation, doing its best to spoil recommendations and digging-in on loopholes that appeared to water down the agreement, such as the inclusion of spurious "flexible" mechanisms for meeting emissions reductions. And when developed nations negotiated a commitment to bring CO2 emissions down 5.1% on 1990 levels by 2008-12, Australia, as part of its selfless commitment to global solidarity, agreed only to an 8% increase as its national target.

Australia hence signed the Kyoto Protocol, but since then the Howard government has refused to bring it into law – backing the US position in stating that reductions in CO2 emissions would not be pursued if it impacted at all on GDP growth; this would not be in the national interest.

To be fair, despite not ratifying Kyoto, the Howard government has made a commitment to achieve its target, outside the framework of the Protocol, and Australia is currently experiencing high population growth (12% since 1990) making reductions difficult. Furthermore, an additional reason for not ratifying was Howard’s belief that the minnows of global emissions (the developing world) should be similarly bound. That said, many other Annex 1 nations (the commitment states) are experiencing similar rates of population growth but have committed themselves to achieving real reductions and China - a non-signatory – looks set to meet its non-binding commitments

For Australia, since Kyoto, it has been full-steam ahead for emissions generating activities with only voluntary restrictions placed on business through the "Greenhouse Challenge Program". The Australian Greenhouse Office (AGO) projects that by 2008-2012 (the target period), emissions from all sectors excluding land use change will have increased to 135% over and above 1990 levels. In all but one trade and industry-based sectors, Australia’s projected emissions are on the way up and off the chart. Stationary emissions (from electricity generation for example) will be at 146% of 1990 levels; transport emissions will be at 146% of 1990 levels. There is even evidence to suggest that emissions increases from stationary energy and transport will actually accelerate through the commitment period.

Sector		Projected 2008 – 2012 average as a % of 1990 levels
Energy	Total	143%
	Stationary	146%
	Transport	142%
	Fugitive	123%
Agriculture		112%
WasteManagement		99%
Industrial Processes		153%
Total - excluding land use change		135%

Table 1: Greenhouse gas emissions by sector in 2008-2012 as a percentage of 1990 levels.

So what are the causes for the celebration? The annual report "Tracking to the Kyoto Target" has revealed that – unlike last year – Australia is now on target to meet its commitments of limiting CO2 emissions to 108%, as agreed at Kyoto. What the Commonwealth report fails to highlight is that it has all been achieved by the actions of two just State governments, with no help from the Commonwealth.

Like other land-rich, developed nations, Australia fought tooth and nail for the addition of ‘flexible mechanisms’ in the Kyoto Protocol – particularly for the inclusion of land-use change emissions accounting in each nation’s CO2 auditing. With the backing of the US, these mechanisms were agreed in the final Protocol. Of course since then, both these nations have reneged and failed to bring the Protocol into law, but the auditing standards remain in tact. This has allowed Australia to make use of its shocking record in deforestation and vegetation clearance in its CO2 accounting. In slowing clearance, Australia can reduce its emissions.

The first piece of legislation to be passed by the Queensland Government on re-election was the Vegetation Management Act 2004. This Act has paved the way for the complete phase out of broadhectare clearing in Queensland by December 2006. It has come at a cost to the Queensland taxpayer of some $150m in compensation and adjustment packages, but it will preserve precious natural habitat. This State Act alone has saved Howard’s bacon, yet his government has not submitted a single cent. Reduced emissions from ‘avoided deforestation’ in Queensland and New South Wales will entirely account for Australia meeting its commitment. NSW laws are also restricting land clearing.

Of course, if it is within the carbon accounting rules, why the sniping from the sidelines? Australia should be able to meet its commitments in the most appropriate and cost effective manner. But Australia is exploiting loopholes in the Kyoto Protocol that may fulfil the Protocol’s obligations (or in Australia’s case its ‘promise’) but do not achieve outcomes that are of long term benefit to both the environment and Australia.

Firstly, prior to 1990 (the baseline year), rates of remnant vegetation clearance in Australia were already on the way down (apart from in Queensland). Fundamental to the spirit of the Kyoto Protocol, was that off-setting emissions in developed nations through changes in land use should be secondary to curbing emissions from fossil fuel combustion. Clearly, for Australia, this has never been the case, with land use change accounting for all emissions reductions. How far emissions would have fallen notwithstanding Kyoto commitments (the "business as usual" scenario) has not been published by the Australian Greenhouse Office, but suffice to say that by 1997 emissions had already fallen to 50% of the 1990 level and are not projected to fall much further before 2020.

Secondly, forestry sinks, which in the target period are estimated to contribute –4% to Australia’s emissions, are notoriously controversial to audit. Forestry schemes tend to be large-scale plantations, from where it is difficult to track what becomes of the wood whence harvested. Of course, if it is burnt as charcoal or is used in co-firing coal fired power stations (whether it is replanted or not), it has no net long term sink benefit, yet the accounting credits remain booked in. As yet, the science is still developing as to how long growing forests absorb CO2 and local changes to climatic conditions may lead to forests drying and even become net carbon emitters. An additional criticism is that monoculture plantations are ecologically damaging by other means – destroying biodiversity, altering watercourse and marine chemistry, not promoting any technology exchange and not generating sustainable gainful local employment.

But perhaps most importantly, relying on domestic land use change to fulfil commitments leaves Australia ill-prepared for the post-Kyoto world. By the time the commitment period has passed, the AGO projects that land use change CO2 emissions will be stabilised at some 40Mt per annum and it will be difficult for Australia to achieve further reductions in emissions from this sector. Furthermore, it will be become increasingly to difficult to accurately model afforestation as a carbon sink, as the effects of climate change will add further complexity to the carbon modelling of land use change.

In this post-Kyoto world, the AGO predicts that by 2020, total emissions including land use change and including mitigation measures will have continued to rise to 123% of 1990 levels, with stationary energy increasing to 166% and transport to 159%. By 2020, land use change and afforestation may account for just 3% of Australia’s emissions. Without being able to bank easy credits on reducing deforestation levels, any post-Kyoto emissions agreements will be almost impossible for Australia to meet with any confidence.

The Howard government has only one strategy for tackling climate change. In its recent white paper "Securing Australia’s Energy Future", the government committed itself to full exploitation of the nation’s coal reserves – potentially stretching out fossil fuel use 300 years into the future. The paper earmarked continued public subsidy for private exploration of new fossil fuel sources, including shale-oil – a even worse pollution source than brown coal. The Prime Minister and his chief scientific adviser (a mining executive with Rio Tinto, funnily enough) believe the answer lies in geo-sequestration – burying CO2 in the ground. This is unproven, potentially catastrophic technology and will be slow and expensive to bring on-stream (see previous refutation), but Howard must be praying it works, as he has gambled all his chips on this scheme. With Australian investment in clean energy technologies falling (thanks to the paltry 2% Mandatory Renewable Energy Target) and opportunities for terrestrial forest sequestration drying up, Australia’s net CO2 emissions look set to run away.

It is widely accepted that the emissions reductions agreed at Kyoto are just the beginning. Far larger reductions – and an eventual net balance - will be needed to stabilise anthropogenic CO2 levels in the atmosphere. The UK government recently committed itself to achieving a 60% reduction by 2050 and while Australia is projecting a 23% increase by 2020, the German government is gunning for a 40% cut by that year. Australia’s attitude towards climate change is both selfish and dangerous. The risks inherent in continuing this growth at all costs strategy are far too great for the highest per capita emitter of CO2 to pretend it is in anyway a special case.

The 10^th session of the Conference of Parties ("COP-10") of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change are currently meeting in Buenos Aires.

---