By Susan Laszlo
While more severe and frequent drought and floods, linked to the El Niño effect, are being cited as evidence of the greenhouse problem, the Australian government is forging ahead with its campaign to scuttle binding greenhouse gas emission targets at the United Nation's Kyoto climate conference in December.
The government says it has a lot of support. But only South Korea and the oil-producing nations of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are publicly backing it. In the last few months, Britain, the US and several European countries have been scathing in their criticism of the Howard government and its advice. Even Britain's former Tory environment minister, John Gummer, has been quoted as saying, "Nobody takes Australia's position seriously".
The Howard government argues that Australia must be given "special treatment" because the economy relies heavily on fossil fuels. It says, citing research from the Australian Bureau of Resource Economics (ABARE), that Australia cannot "afford" to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions.
It has even suggested that Australia should be allowed to increase its greenhouse gas emissions. Confidential emission projection data, obtained by the Australian Conservation Foundation, show that in the absence of new policies, greenhouse gas emissions from the energy sector will increase by 20-65% by 2010.
Whereas once the government took advice from CSIRO, these days it seems to be basing its entire argument on research provided by ABARE, a group inside the Department of Primary Industries and Energy, based on a model called MEGABARE.
According to the April ABARE Update, "One of the main findings is that carbon dioxide stabilisation in developed countries will do little to limit growth in global emissions because of the expected rapid growth in developing countries such as India and China".
This is contradicted by Walter Reid from the World Resources Institute and Jose Goldemberg (a former Brazilian environment minister), who have documented that, since 1990, several large developing countries have limited emissions using price reform and the promotion of efficiency and renewable energy.
They concluded, "Developing countries may be achieving equivalent or greater CO2 emissions savings than OECD countries in absolute terms and ... significantly greater savings as a percentage of their emissions".
ABARE argues that uniform targets would severely affect fossil fuel-intensive economies. While it's true that reducing greenhouse gases would have an impact on the fossil fuel sector (currently in receipt of some 40% of government assistance) this would not necessarily be a bad thing. If such subsidies were instead used to promote clean energy, jobs and renewable energy would be created.
ABARE's pessimistic outlook on change is understandable given that its climate change modelling was funded to the tune of $560,000 by nine companies and associations representing coal, oil and aluminium interests.
According to ACF, these corporations paid a minimum fee of $50,000 for a seat on the modelling steering committee. An ABARE promotional pamphlet outlining the benefits of membership states: "By becoming a member of the consortium you will have an influence on the direction of the model development".
ACF applied for a position on the committee, arguing on the grounds of the need for balance, and asked that the fee be waived. The request was rejected.
ACF says the results of the MEGABARE model are based on a set of false assumptions that: energy is already being used efficiently in Australia; the costs and level of development of sustainable energy technologies are "fixed"; and there is limited potential to switch to sustainable energy technologies and services.
These assumptions are false, says ACF. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that the potential for cost-effective energy efficiency improvements in industrialised countries is in the range of 10-30%.
"Numerous Australian studies have estimated the potential in Australia to be at the high end of this range. According to these studies, cost effective energy efficiency programs and switching to more greenhouse friendly fuels could cut Australia's energy-related greenhouse gas emissions by 15-45 per cent", says ACF.
Another problem with MEGABARE, ACF says, is that it does not take into account emissions from sources other than energy such as land clearing which produce some 25% of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions.
Some 131 Australian economists have also criticised MEGABARE for overestimating the costs and underestimating the benefits of reducing Australia's greenhouse gas emissions, the highest per capita in the developed world.
The fact that the government has not implemented the relatively weak projections of the 1992 National Greenhouse Response Strategy and, in its recent budget, cut funds to the National Energy and Efficiency Program highlight the hypocrisy of its pleas for special dispensation.
Industrialised countries are responsible for some 80% of global greenhouse emissions, and Australia must take a lead in beginning to tackle one of the most serious environmental problems facing humanity.