Is Australia Faking It? The Kyoto Protocol & The Greenhouse Policy Challenge (original) (raw)

Meeting National Emissions Reduction Obligations: A Case Study of Australia

Energies, 2019

Akin to a public good, emissions reduction suffers from the ‘free rider’ syndrome. Although many countries claim that they are meeting their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction commitments, the average global temperature and GHG emissions continue to rise. This has led to growing speculation that some countries may be taking advantage of the system by effectively exploiting a range of loopholes in global agreements. Using a case study approach, we critically review the evidence from Australia, exploring how Australia has participated in global climate change negotiations and the way in which this emissions intensive country’s national emissions reduction obligations have been met. The findings suggest that: (1) successful negotiation to include Article 3.7 (‘Adjusting the 1990 Baseline’ or ‘the Australia Clause’) in the Kyoto Protocol significantly favored Australia’s ability to meet its First Kyoto Commitment (2008–2012); and (2) successful bargaining for the accounting rule t...

Cheating on climate change? Australia's challenge to global warming norms

Australian Journal of International Affairs, 2009

The international governance of climate change was initially informed by two norms concerning who should take responsibility for mitigating climate change and how such mitigation should be pursued.1 Since the early 1990s, these norms have been contested by several states. In this article the author argues that such contestation is a product of the perceived incongruence between these norms and the domestic conditions of those states they seek to govern. Following an overview of the emergence and contestation of climate governance norms, the author elaborates on this relationship between international norms and domestic conditions. These theoretical assumptions are then explored in the context of Australia's response to international climate governance norms from the late 1980s to 2007. As the author demonstrates, the perceived incongruence of these norms with domestic conditions led Australia's foreign policy makers to contest the norms and focus on the construction of alternative governance processes by reframing the issue of climate change. Through a diversion of attention away from historical emissions to future emissions and possible technological mitigation options, climate governance was temporarily reconciled with Australia's domestic conditions. However, the author suggests that this came at the expense of international equity and long-term national sustainability.

Low hanging fruit in Australia's climate policy

SSRN Electronic Journal, 2021

Australia has a history of fragmented and politically contested climate policy, and current climate policy is both piecemeal and limited in scope and ambition. Ample opportunities exist to reduce emissions through the more broad-based application of policy. This paper outlines six areas where climate policy in Australia could achieve emissions reductions at low cost: pricing emissions in industry through a modification and broadening of the existing Safeguards Mechanism; investment in assisting the transformation of the electricity grid to very high shares of renewables; a mixture of innovation support, and targeted incentives and regulatory standards in specific sectors and activities; an effective green infrastructure program to stimulate demand and raise productivity in the medium term; a community focussed structural adjustment fund that would enable disproportionately impacted communities to adapt reality of the global transition to net-zero emissions by 2050; and removing impediments to the emergence of new renewable energy-based export industries to take the place of coal and gas exports.

Bringing Paris Home: How Australia measures up against the new global climate agreement

In December 2015, at the Paris Climate Change Conference, the world reached a universal agreement for tackling climate change. On 22 April 2016, world leaders will sign the Paris Agreement in New York and ensure it enters into force as soon as possible. But for Australia, the gap between what this agreement demands of us and the level of commitments we currently have on the table remains extraordinarily wide. Australia continues to lag far behind other countries’ actions. The months since Paris have delivered forceful reminders of what is at stake: temperature records have been shattered; the Great Barrier Reef has suffered unprecedented bleaching; Cyclone Winston brought devastation to Fiji; and a super-charged El Niño wrought havoc across our region. Australia must act immediately to bring its actions into line with the goals of the Paris Agreement, including efforts to limit global warming to 1.5°C, providing adequate support to developing countries, and protecting the rights of vulnerable communities. Australia has all it needs to be part of today’s climate and energy solutions, and to create a brighter future for Australia and the world. A majority of Australians support stronger action, but big polluters, vested interests and failures of political leadership are holding us back. As we approach the 2016 federal election, Australia needs a visionary plan of action to address climate change, and this should be at the heart of all parties’ agendas. This report outlines Australia’s three key tasks — to end carbon pollution, to support developing countries and to protect vulnerable communities — and compares political parties’ positions with the goals of the Paris Agreement.

An analysis of Australia’s carbon pollution reduction scheme

International Journal of Environmental Studies, 2009

The authors review the decision‐making since the Labour Government came into office (November 2007). The Australian Government’s ‘Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme’ White Paper (15 December 2008) proposes that an Australian Emissions Trading Scheme (AETS) be implemented in mid‐2010. Acknowledging that the scheme is comprehensive, the paper finds that in many cases, Australia will take a softer approach to climate change through the AETS than the European Union ETS (EUETS). The paper assesses key issues in the White Paper such as emissions reduction targets, GHG coverage, sectoral coverage, inclusion of unlimited quantities of offsets from Kyoto international markets and exclusion of deforestation activities.

Land-use change in Australia and the Kyoto Protocol

Environmental Science & Policy, 1999

In the dying hours of the Kyoto Climate Change Conference, the negotiators agreed to the insertion of the`Australia clause' in Article 3.7. The clause permits countries for which land-use change and forestry are a net source of greenhouse gas emissions to include net emissions from land-use change in their 1990 base year for the purpose of calculating assigned amounts or targets for the commitment period 2008±2010.

The logic of collective action and Australia�s climate policy a

2010

We analyse the long-term efficiency of the emissions target and of the provisions to reduce carbon leakage in the Australian Government's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, as proposed in March 2009, and the nature and likely cause of changes to these features in the previous year. The target range of 5-15 per cent cuts in national emission entitlements during 2000-2020 was weak, in that on balance it is too low to minimise Australia's long-term mitigation costs. The free allocation of output-linked, tradable emissions permits to emissions-intensive, trade-exposed (EITE) sectors was much higher than proposed earlier, or shown to be needed to deal with carbon leakage. It plausibly means that EITE emissions can rise by 13 per cent during 2010-2020, while non-EITE sectors must cut emissions by 34-51 per cent (or make equivalent permit imports) to meet the national targets proposed, far from a cost-effective outcome. The weak targets and excessive EITE assistance illustrate the efficiency-damaging power of collective action by the 'carbon lobby'. Resisting this requires new national or international institutions to assess lobby claims impartially, and more government publicity about the true economic importance of carbon-intensive sectors.

The logic of collective action and Australia’s climate policy*

Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 2010

We analyse the long-term efficiency of the emissions target and of the provisions to reduce carbon leakage in the Australian Government's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, as proposed in March 2009, and the nature and likely cause of changes to these features in the previous year. The target range of 5-15 per cent cuts in national emission entitlements during 2000-2020 was weak, in that on balance it is too low to minimise Australia's long-term mitigation costs. The free allocation of output-linked, tradable emissions permits to emissions-intensive, trade-exposed (EITE) sectors was much higher than proposed earlier, or shown to be needed to deal with carbon leakage. It plausibly means that EITE emissions can rise by 13 per cent during 2010-2020, while non-EITE sectors must cut emissions by 34-51 per cent (or make equivalent permit imports) to meet the national targets proposed, far from a cost-effective outcome. The weak targets and excessive EITE assistance illustrate the efficiency-damaging power of collective action by the 'carbon lobby'. Resisting this requires new national or international institutions to assess lobby claims impartially, and more government publicity about the true economic importance of carbon-intensive sectors.