Isra-Mart srl: Outsider can't understand our climate debate

www.isra-mart.com

"I don't know why people have the impression that Australia is jumping ahead of the rest of the world," Malte Meinshausen says. With its promised 5 per cent cut in greenhouse gas emissions from 2000 levels by 2020, he adds, Australia still will have the highest per capita emissions in the developed world.

As a German climate scientist and policy adviser, his perspective is that global warming presents enormous opportunities for innovation and that the advantage goes to countries, such as China and Germany, that are acting early and boldly. He enthuses about the possibilities for a future not just of reduced but negative greenhouse gas emissions, drawing more out of the atmosphere than we put in.
He believes Australia has come up with a "very clever" package of measures that benefits from the mistakes made in the early years of the European emissions trading scheme, including sharp fluctuations in carbon prices after too many permits flooded the market. He says Australia's fixed price under a carbon tax for the first three years means the government will have a much clearer idea of emission levels in different industries before permits are auctioned. But he puzzles over the continued resistance to action in Australia.

"I think it is seen in the rest of the world as ironic because Australia is known world-wide as a country which already has had a lot of struggle with climate variability and now with climate change is likely to be the developed country hit hardest." It follows that Australia also stands to gain most in the developed world from global action.

"If with the highest per capita emissions in the developed world Australia says it cannot be bothered to do anything, what do you then tell the Indians and Chinese with multiple times lower emissions per person? That they should act first?"

His perspective is German but also global. As well as a senior researcher at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, he is a scientific adviser to the German delegation to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the mechanism through which 89 countries, including Australia, have made their pledges for action. He is in Australia for the next few years as part of a collaboration between the Potsdam Institute and the University of Melbourne.

Germany is committed to a 40 per cent cut in emissions from 1990 levels by 2020. Despite also promising to phase out nuclear power, it is well on the way to getting there through a huge investment in renewable energy, together with participation in the European ETS. Unlike Australian businesses' resistance to change, leading international companies such as Siemens and Bosch have tied their future to a low carbon economy.

There are big differences between Germany and Australia. A 40 per cent cut in emissions is easier in a country whose population is falling, as opposed to Australia, where it is growing.

Meinshausen says about 11 percentage points of the reduction comes from closing inefficient plants in east Germany following reunification, though he adds that this involved a very expensive modernisation program. But taking these factors into account still puts Germany, together with other countries, well ahead of Australia.

The Productivity Commission pointed out recently that the costs of emissions abatement in Germany, including generous subsidies for renewables, were high. But Meinshausen says the cost of renewables, particularly solar, has come down dramatically. And it is not as though the resources devoted to reducing emissions have crippled the German economy: it remains one of the strongest in Europe.

As in Britain, Germany's aggressive policy is being carried forward by a conservative-liberal government with, according to opinion polls, 90 per cent public support. The big difference with Australia in terms of getting things done is bipartisanship.

There is a long tradition of environmental sustainability in German policy-making. And Meinshausen says action on climate change is seen in large part as an innovation policy, with the aim, among others, to ensure long-term growth in manufacturing. "It is the innovation technology agenda that drives conservative-liberal thinking on why action on climate change is something of a win-win strategy in Germany."

German policies will not necessarily always work in Australia. But it is not hard to find corroboration for Meinshausen's main arguments. According to the Climate Institute, Australia's target of a 5 per cent reduction by 2020 is less than a proportionate contribution to global mitigation, given the commitments of other countries, not only through an ETS but other initiatives.

Ross Garnaut judges in his updated report to the government that the international commitments made so far could limit emissions to 550-650 parts per million. This is similar to the assessment by the International Energy Agency. Garnaut estimates Australia's fair share of a 550ppm target as a 10 per cent cut in emissions.

"Given our starting point, the realistic ambition is to catch up with our fair share rather than to be a leader," he adds.

Not that a 550ppm target would end global warming. Rather, it would raise temperatures by a likely 3C to 4C, according to the scientific evidence. Warming of 4C would create an 85 per cent probability of large-scale melting of the Greenland ice sheet, leading to a 7m rise in sea levels in future centuries. It also would increase the possibility of accelerated disintegration of the west Antarctic ice sheet, causing another 6m rise.

Still, the debate here remains fixated on whether Australia is moving too fast and too soon. This week Tony Abbott ridiculed the Australian target of a 5 per cent cut which he, too, is supposed to be committed to by arguing that China's already substantial emissions would increase exponentially. We could try persuading China not to raise its standard of living because countries that did so earlier put too much carbon dioxide into the air. And we would need to stop India developing at the same time. Good luck on both counts.

Indian emissions were 1.7 tonnes a person in 2005 and China's 5.5 tonnes, compared with 23.4 tonnes in the US and 27.3 in Australia. The only realistic basis for an eventual international agreement is, as Garnaut suggests, for each country to converge on equal per capita emissions by, say, 2050. That would mean the developed world's emissions coming steadily down and developing countries' figures rising before also beginning to fall.

Business and the opposition say the Australian ETS coverage is broader than schemes in other countries. Yet large parts of the economy, including agriculture and car transport, have been excluded and compensation for affected businesses is up to 94.5 per cent.

This week business groups began running advertisements claiming Australia will pay the world's biggest carbon tax even though it produces only 1.5 per cent of the world's emissions. If other countries used that excuse, we may as well fold our tent now.

According to Climate Change Minister Greg Combet, more than 40 per cent of global emissions come from countries that individually account for less than 5 per cent of the total. Britain, with 1.7 per cent of global emissions, is committed to a 50 per cent reduction in 1990 emissions by 2025.

Business and the opposition say that it is the wrong time to put a new tax on manufacturing and other businesses that are suffering from a high dollar and slack consumer demand. But they also argued it was the wrong time when Kevin Rudd tried to introduce an ETS after the global financial crisis. In truth there will never be a better time for the resources sector, which has many of the industries most affected.