This is why I am starting to despair about Bali even before the negotiations have really begun. "Australia's delegation in Bali was quoted as saying Australia 'fully supports' a plan for developed nations to examine cutting emissions by between 25% and 40% by 2020", we read in yesterday's paper, but:
Mr Rudd and his Climate Change Minister, Penny Wong, later issued statements stressing that Australia was not yet committing to any 2020 targets... By playing down the need for Australia to commit to the deep cuts in emissions...Labor under Kevin Rudd has agreed to set a target of a 60% cut by 2050, but has resisted setting a 2020 goal...This is not encouraging reading. It does not suggest that Australia is about to become a leader in the global response to climate change. What is suggests to me is that Australia, like most other nations, will haggle and bargain and make rhetoric about sharing the responsibility and try and get away with a minimum of commitment. Rudd himself described the process as "horse trading." Horse trading! Need I even point out that coming together to prevent irreversible changes to the Earth's climate needs a different mindset than negotiating a bauxite exporting contract? If we approach global warming as a game to be optimized in our country's favor, we are truly doomed. The horse trading will turn to recriminations as the disaster hits.
The world is crying out for leadership here, and I had high hopes we might provide it. "We owe it future generations to prevent this disaster occurring," a parallel-universe Rudd might have said. "Whatever the cost, Australia will shoulder its obligations, and help those in the developing world to bear theirs. All humanity is in this together, and time is too short for any further prevarication and horse trading." Fictional Rudd then evoked the spirit of the Apollo Project as he called on the world to make a massive investment in alternative energy research. "We not only plan on meeting these agressive targets but surpassing them by harnessing the limitless ingenuity of our scientists, engineers, and entrepeneurs." I wonder, which alarms you more, the imaginary speech or the remarks printed in the real-world newspaper?
Of course, we're much better off with Rudd than the previous government. In the same article opposition leader Brendan Nelson was quoted as saying "a 2020 target in the range mentioned in Bali would damage industries and hurt low-income Australians." I have a hard time understanding the logic underpinning a statement like this. How can one weigh up shaving 0.2%, say, of Australia's economic growth with preventing an unprecedented global catastrophe and decide to err in favour of the former?
It's clear to me that the consequences of global warming are truly terrible. To cut our emissions according to the most agressive schedule, what cut in my standard of living would be required today? Couldn't we as a nation tighten our belts and make do with a 1% increase in the tax rate, higher electricity prices, or a surcharge on the price of new cars? How will my standard of living decrease when war, famine and drought are the order of the day?
This video sums things up nicely. The costs of action can be well understood and are not unbearable. The costs of inaction are to a large extent unknown but could be catastrophic. It doesn't matter if the true extent of global warming isn't a certainty - it merely has to be likely or even possible for immediate action to be warranted. What's more, I think the electorate largely agrees with me. It's time Kevin Rudd and the the world's leaders to step up and do what needs to be done.
No comments:
Post a Comment