Antinuclear

They have gone up and down and they might not be rising by as much as if we’d never heard the words “climate change”, but in absolute terms our greenhouse emissions are trending up, not down.

And yet over those same decades we will have solemnly given three different national pledges to reduce our emissions and, as the environment minister, Greg Hunt, keeps enthusiastically reminding us, in every case we will “meet and beat” our pledges.

How can it be possible for national emissions to rise over 30 years while a country “meets and beats” successive promises to reduce them? The answer takes us first deep into the complicated and chaotic world of international climate negotiations and then to the dizzying heights of political spin.

We start in 1997 in the Japanese city of Kyoto, where John Howard’s environment minister Robert Hill held out late into the night for a special deal recognising Australia’s reliance on fossil fuel industries.

And in the end he got it. Whereas Europe promised to reduce emissions by 8% by 2012, compared with the base year of 1990, and the US agreed to cut by 7%, Australia was one of three countries allowed to increase emissions – by 8%.

But then, long past the point where most delegates were supposed to have left and many had not slept in days or were passed out on sofas or behind pot plants, Australia insisted on yet another special deal – so particular to our circumstances it was called “the Australia Clause”. It allowed the inclusion of land-use changes in emission calculations in a way that meant restrictions that had already been imposed on large-scale land clearing – especially in Queensland – allowed Australia to rest assured it had achieved its new target before it even signed up to it.

I reported on that meeting for the Australian Financial Review – the dusty boxes of files dredged from the backrooms of the parliamentary library remind of the brinkmanship Australia engaged in, still demanding the Australia Clause changes when the translators had already left the building and the cleaners had started rearranging the room for the next scheduled conference.

When it was done, the European environment spokesman raged that the deal was “wrong and immoral … and a disgrace” and the then executive director of the Australia Institute, Clive Hamilton, quickly calculated that Australia’s emissions were likely to come in under the new target, without the need to do anything.

Hill got an ovation when he returned to cabinet and John Howard declared the deal to be “splendid”…….Australia is not the only country to have tried to use international rules to its domestic advantage. But Australia’s history of special deals now raises some big domestic policy questions.

First, since the 5% target for 2020 is clearly a doddle, and since the rest of the world is clearly acting, why don’t we take on a higher 2020 target, as we promised?

Second, the factors that have been pushing our emissions down are unwinding. Land clearing is increasing, we are generating more electricity from the dirtiest brown coal since the carbon price repeal and big LNG projects are coming on stream that will also push up our greenhouse gases. Neither major party has yet detailed policies that could turn that around.

And third, the accounting rules may not come to our rescue another time. It is not clear whether we will be able to “carry over” again, although Hunt has indicated we would like to. But the task is now also bigger than any “carry over” could massage.

After decades of fighting and fudging, Australia will have to really do something about its greenhouse emissions this time. http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/nov/27/welcome-to-the-wonderful-world-of-climate-talks-where-less-means-more?CMP=share_btn_tw