Could they?

November 8, 2013
Written by: ozfenric
29 Replies

Next week, the 19th session of the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC and the 9th session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol will be held in Warsaw. These sessions are a continuation of the process that included the important and internationally accepted Kyoto Treaty, and are building towards a final meeting with the intention of creating a binding, internationally agreed treaty on climate change mitigation, in 2015.

Not entirely surprisingly, the Abbott Coalition government will not be sending a Minister nor a senior representative. This omission is regarded as “highly unusual“, but from a government openly skeptical of the human impact on climate change (or the very existence of it) and hostile to most accepted forms of responding to it, it can perhaps be understood. It is disturbingly ironic that the Environment Minister, Greg Hunt, will instead be in Parliament trying to dismantle Australia’s world-leading attempt at carbon abatement through an emissions trading scheme whilst his international counterparts will be at a global conference discussing ways to implement exactly this kind of scheme.

More disturbingly, the government has cancelled consultations which were already planned with domestic business representatives and foreign diplomats to brief them on Australia’s stance at the talks. These consultations are traditionally held in advance of this annual meeting and some have suggested that their cancellation indicates rifts and disagreements within the Abbott government about the appropriate approach. But a more sinister possibility exists.

It is certainly possible that the meetings were cancelled because Australia effectively has no stance on the climate talks to offer; that the Cabinet is not united, the Abbott government has not had sufficient time to formulate an approach, and to engage in these consultations would reveal the extent of the disagreements. It’s also possible that the Abbott government thinks that climate change discussions are such a waste of time that the cancellation of these meetings is a cost-saving measure. But these are not the only possible explanations.

Whichever way the talks go, and whatever you think of anthropogenic climate change, Australia stands to lose, and lose big.

If climate change is real and goes unmitigated, we’re amongst the biggest losers in terms of environmental impact, with effects on health, productivity, real estate and loss of food security.
If climate change is not real but enforceable limits come into place, Australia’s biggest competitive advantage in the world – and pretty much the only one that matters under a Coalition government – is badly devalued. It’s known as a carbon bubble and the effects on Australia would be severe. If Australia can find no buyers for her coal, oil and gas, or the terms of trade for these resources decline, then Australia’s GDP goes through the floor. Cue huge unemployment, recession, social unrest – and if Australia failed to succeed in heroic efforts to retool for a new economy, failed state status would not be out of the question.

There are thus three major policy positions available.

If you don’t believe in climate change, the only position with integrity is to frustrate the creation of any kind of global, binding emissions standards. The imposition of these standards would needlessly and critically damage the Australian economy, and the Coalition is tying Australia ever more closely to the success of its carboniferous export markets.
If you are agnostic on climate change, the pragmatic position, of greatest benefit to a political party right now, is to frustrate global standards. In this way you can defer the negative impacts of binding emissions standards and the end of the carbon bubble, at least for a while. Hopefully, at least while you remain in power.
If you are a believer in climate change, the only position with integrity is to support and promote global standards, which will have significant economic consequences for Australia. The resultant devaluing of the big mining companies will mean foregoing a huge volume of tax and royalty revenue. It will require a significant effort at retooling the economy to support renewable energy, with increased research and development, funds being given to climate projects, and governmental support and backing for mechanisms to reduce carbon outputs without crippling the economy. In other words, much of the infrastructure that makes up Labor’s ETS legislation, that Greg Hunt will be trying to dismantle starting next week.

The Coalition has an overall tendency towards climate change denial, and an overwhelming amount of political pragmatism. Could they be planning to vote no; to do everything possible to sabotage international agreement on the topic of standards?

It can only be to the Coalition’s benefit to frustrate global agreement on carbon standards. Successful adoption of binding standards has the following effects:

The Coalition’s stance appears increasingly out of step with the rest of the world;
Other countries divest from oil, coal & gas, with the aforementioned economic impacts on Australia;
Other countries benefit from their own huge investments in solar/renewables, that the Coalition has turned its back on or repealed; and
The importance of the global emissions trading market burgeons, just as the Coalition may well be successful (particularly after July 2014) in deconstructing Australia’s own stake in the game.

On the other hand, continued global disagreement has the following outcomes of benefit to the Coalition:

Support is provided to the standard political excuses: “The science isn’t settled”, “The argument’s not over”, and “We’re awaiting consensus.”
A temporary delay may be achieved in the collapse of the fossil fuel market. This provides the government of the day more time to dig up and sell the fossil fuel resources Australia is so rich in, while we still can.

If the Coalition truly disbelieves in climate change, or man’s contribution to it, then if it is to be true to itself, it will mandate policies that frustrate the efforts of meetings such as Warsaw, November 2013. In so doing, it is going to be actively destroying the future of the planet; furthermore, it is currently lying to the Australian people whenever it talks about Direct Action and carbon emissions targets it doesn’t see as relevant. To readers of this blog, this is no revelation at all.

If the Coalition isn’t sure about climate change and is simply being pragmatic, in addition to destroying the future, they are more culpable: they are deliberately risking the future for the sake of their own political present.

And if, contrary to many peoples’ beliefs, the Coalition actually believes in climate change, but still acts to frustrate consensus for its own political gain, knowing the effects it will have on generations yet to come, then that would be the most evil of all.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Post Views: 631

29 comments

Login here

Register here

mikestasseNovember 8, 2013 at 8:55 am

” If Australia can find no buyers for her coal, oil and gas” WHAT OIL? The oil we’ll be running out of in 2020?

Oh and then there’s this….. http://www.smh.com.au/national/razor-taken-to-csiro-20131107-2x4fu.html#ixzz2jxvo2Yt7

puffytmdNovember 8, 2013 at 9:15 am

Yeah but…Julia lied to us. *cry cry whimper whimper, punches wall*

Douglas EvansNovember 8, 2013 at 9:57 am

As one diplomat said about our low level of representation at the upcoming talks ‘With these gatherings you are either AT the table or ON the menu’. Doubtless Australia together with other carbon recalcitrants like Canada will be aiming to stymie progress but there is great potential to miss out big-time. We won’t hear about it from most of the MSM or certainly from this government but we will most likely pay dearly for our position as spoiler.

On the end of the carbon bubble: ‘International Mining’ which describes itself as ‘written for miners by miners’ reports: “…the coal industry has experienced a rapid deterioration in investment in both mining and associated infrastructure projects over the last year, … in the six months prior to April 2013 no coal projects had progressed from initial public announcement to feasibility stage and no coal projects had progressed to investment commitment. A$19 billion of project investment had reverted to the first stage of the investment cycle, or been cancelled altogether.

Four distinct coal infrastructure projects had been deferred or cancelled in the past 12 months, with Abbot Point T4 – T9 project in Queensland, Port Waratah Coal Services Kooragang Island T4 at Newcastle, Yarwun Coal Terminal and the Balaclava Island Coal Terminal at Gladstone all halting development.’

The Guardian reports that BHP Billiton is scrapping plans for new coal terminal at Abbot Point in Queensland. The article states:

‘A report by the Centre for Policy Development has found there is an excess of port capacity along the Queensland coast, raising concerns that the push to expand ports at Abbot Point, Gladstone and Townsville could put the state “at risk of stranded assets in the long term”.
The study found coal ports to be operating at 65% of capacity, 20% lower than the long-term industry average.
It stated that investment banks such as Goldman Sachs were “losing confidence” in Australian coal investments, with the international coal price dropping 22% since 2010.
According to the report, many of Queensland’s proposed projects require a coal price of $120 a tonne to be viable. The current price is about $77, with the World Bank forecasting a $70-a-tonne average until 2020.’

Is that the sound of a bubble bursting?

Cameron McNamaraNovember 8, 2013 at 10:00 am

You just lost your credibility,, I think if you researched a little more efficiently you will find Australia is sending very senior representation to Warsaw. I am all for Abbott bashing but let’s get the facts straight or I might as well read The Australian.

OzFenricNovember 8, 2013 at 10:11 am

Hi Cameron, thank you. I understand that “Australia’s Climate Change Ambassador” will be attending. I did not claim that nobody from Australia was going; in fact, I implied that our representatives would be there with a mandate to frustrate and obfuscate.
We are unable to say what the negotiating mandate for Australia’s delegation will be, as the government has cancelled the meetings that would specify its position to businesses and foreign diplomats, and isn’t speaking to the Australian media. This piece is a hypothetical which analyses one potential cause for the government’s reticence, and in the absence of other/better information is valid as a hypothesis.
I would love to be wrong. Please indicate the “very senior representation” that will be sent to Warsaw and if possible any indication as to what instructions they have been given. All that I’ve seen reported to date is that they will seek :”a deep, strong international agreement”. And thank you for your contribution – we’d all love to know more.

Geoff Of EppingNovember 8, 2013 at 10:12 am

It’s becoming more shocking each day we read in the press about the antics of this new mob in power.
I have to admit i am scratching my head at the short term track the government has taken and continues to take.
All the hopes and aspirations of Australians rest with this uncaring, unfeeling, unintelligent government, who seem more interested in playing ideology than preserving out futures.
The Coalition voters around Australia, are, mostly sane, hard working people who through no fault of their own have been cruelly duped by Abbott’s softly softly campaign, and will, in a very short time realise that they are not uppermost in Abbott’s mind. They were a means to an end, they have served their purpose.
The rest of us, who voted otherwise are now being taken along for the ride despite not wanting anything to do with it.

John FraserNovember 8, 2013 at 10:19 am

One of the first signs of destruction being wrought in Australia will be when the Great Barrier Reef is divided by the dumping of acidic soils from the Abbott Point coal port dredging.

What spin will be put on that …. The Great Barrier Reef and the Lesser Great Barrier. ? …. or will it be sold as Australia having the 2 biggest reefs in the world ?

The LNP is the Taliban of natural wonders and culture.

John FraserNovember 8, 2013 at 10:56 am

@Michael Taylor

Its a delegation of bureaucrats attending.

Australia’s elected government will not be attending.

Its called “Transparency” … Liberals cannot see the Abbott government and Labor sees right through the Abbott government.

Hunt will be repealing the carbon initiative in parliament …. and Australians will be crying in their weet bix over not getting cheaper electricity and gas.

The ACCC will be making excuses.

johnlord2013November 8, 2013 at 9:56 am

For a former Prime Minister of this country to say that he believed his instincts before the facts of science if nothing more than an admission of his own ignorance. Science deserves better.