Playing Chinese Whispers on Climate

Climate change is a challenging issue. How does one adequately prepare for an unknown level of threat and instigate a major transition in the powering of the economy while minimising the impact.

These challenges are not helped by the sheer complexity of the instruments governing the emission of greenhouse gases. It's hardly surprising that Rudd and Garrett are tying themselves in knots on the issue. Rudd is a late convert to climate change action, previously driving a Ford Territory. Garrett's tenure in the Australian Conservation Foundation has given him a strong ideal policy standpoint. Unfortunately his natural stance is totally at odds with Labor's wedgeproofing policy of supporting coal interests.

The great tragedy of Australia's climate change policy under Howard is that a golden opportunity to cement our export industries in renewable energy was strangled. Australia has forfeited its role as solar leader to Germany and Japan. The Kyoto Protocol offered Australia an opportunity to play a leadership role on both the industrial and diplomatic level which Howard chose to misunderstand. It is a mistake that Rudd does not want to repeat. Instead of using the 8% increase on 1990 levels as an easy way to transition away from coal, Howard stonewalled. Thus the challenge to complete this transition effectively and painlessly is made immeasurably harder.

Rudd's climate change policy has three clearly defined key pillars: immediate ratification of Kyoto, a 60% reduction on C02 levels from 2000 levels by 2050 and a 20% renewable energy target by 2020.

The fourth pillar is the source of consternation. The question of the successor to Kyoto, an instrument which will have to have onerous binding targets and real teeth, is vexed. In the ultimate chicken-and-egg scenario, China won't accept targets unless the US and Australia do (or at least Australia), while Australia won't accept targets unless China does. This stalemate has more than the odd whiff of Neronian fiddlesticks about it. I suspect Rudd's intention is to negotiate with China and India a deal where Australia would accept binding targets on condition they also accepted them, but not necessarily to the same degree or starting at the same time.

The nuance in this is being portrayed as a backflip by a horde of eager Liberals who have descended upon the daylight offered by Garrett's comments like seagulls on a renegade chip. It is quite clear that Rudd would not negotiate future targets (which will have to be something like 30%+ reductions by 2030 at the rate of non-progress and doomsday reports from the IPCC) unless China and India were at least on a timetable to come on board.

Garrett's gaffe comes as much from the fact that he is the climate change guru of the Labor party and Rudd is the political master. Labor clearly want to place Australia in an influential position in future climate change negotiations, where we can show leadership by adopting an early target. Howard seems intent on leading negotiations up the garden path towards voluntary committments. This is rather like saying to a recalcitrant teenager to volunteer to do extra homework. It simply won't work.

Howard's tired old refrain that he will not support an agreement unless it includes the major emitters should be put to the test. What degree of cuts is he prepared to accept and on what basis. Climate change is an inherently complex beast and the public discussion of each party's approach should be subject to a commensurate level of scrutiny.