Peter Garrett MP
Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Heritage

E & EO – Proof only. Check against delivery

In December this year in Bali, Indonesia, the most critical United Nations climate change conference yet will take place.
 
It will be the meeting at which countries will negotiate the building blocks for the next phase of global action to tackle climate change.

Under the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, countries have taken the first steps towards effective global action.

This next phase will be the so-called ‘second commitment period’ of the Kyoto Protocol – to take us beyond 2012.

This is make or break time.

If the Howard Government has its way, Australia will neither participate fully in these discussions, nor be in a position to vote on the deliberations. This is because Mr Howard eschews the role of a responsible global citizen and remains trenchantly opposed to ratifying the Kyoto Protocol.

To paraphrase the Governor of California talking of politicians that oppose action on climate change, Mr Howard would “become a political penguin on a smaller and smaller ice flow that is drifting out to sea”.

But we have a choice.  Australia could play a very different role on the international stage. With APEC in Sydney in September, we could be building support under the United Nations framework for an effective scheme with clear targets to reduce global emissions.

But instead, Mr Howard is looking for an agreement outside the global talks.  One based on voluntary action – which we’ve tried and which we know doesn’t work.

This is the Howard Government’s climate change legacy – an extraordinary public policy failure at home and abroad.  

A domestic policy that sees Australia unprepared for the dramatic impact of climate change.  Eleven years of delay, denial and inaction that will see Australia’s greenhouse pollution soar by 27% by 2020.

And a foreign policy that has left Australia with a damaged reputation as a good international citizen and missed economic opportunity.  

Now that climate change is moving to centre stage of foreign policy discourse, Australia cannot afford to be “left out in the cold”, and yet that is precisely where we are consigned to remain unless there is a change of government.

So I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today and my compliments to Allan Gyngell and the Lowy Institute on the nationally important contribution it is making to Australia’s debate on foreign policy in many areas, including the expanding discourse on climate change.

The scientific case for action is overwhelming  

The global scientific consensus is crystal clear.

Unless we immediately start to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases we are releasing into the atmosphere, we are on a journey to an increasingly hotter, less habitable planet – a journey from which we cannot return.

And as we rapidly approach the point where climate instability is ever more likely, the need to act in the present is not only a matter of urgency, but a powerful necessity for planetary survival.

Our policy response must be guided by science – and what is needed to avoid dangerous climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change gives us 10-15 years to stop increasing global emissions and get on to the path of cutting them by at least 50% by 2050.

The action needed to deliver these global reductions, some of which will be agreed at the Bali meeting in December, will be hard to take, but take them we must.

The international community will have to summon all its cooperative instincts, and work closely together to do the job.

As former US Vice President Al Gore said:


Climate change leadership – beyond the politics of left and right

In the US, Mr Gore has been joined by Democrats and Republicans alike – including his former Commander in Chief Bill Clinton, Republican Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger, Democrat Presidential contender Bill Richardson and Republican contender John McCain, (with a climate bill before Congress seeking a national cap on greenhouse emissions).

Indeed, at a state and regional level, the US is at the forefront of action.  The US Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement has seen 608 US cities, including Seattle, New York and Los Angeles agree to meet or beat Kyoto targets. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative – established under Republican New York Governor Pataki - has seen ten northeast states establish a regional carbon trading plan to meet emission targets.

So the American polity has undeniably shifted on climate change.
 
In other parts of the world, current and former world leaders are calling for global action:

• Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair who initiated the landmark Stern Review and placed climate change on the G8 agenda;
• Former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan whose parting remark that “those who would deny global warming or delay action are out of step and out of time” may well prove to be John Howard’s political epitaph; 
• German Chancellor Angela Merkel at the historic G8 meeting at Heiligendamm in Germany which recognised the need for targets and to work within the UN framework with the Kyoto Protocol; and 
• Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, whose “Cool Earth 50” proposal to halve worldwide emissions by 2050, helped set the scene for the G8 decision.
  

This leadership across the political spectrum is completely at odds with the stance adopted by Mr Howard, stuck it seems in an ideological cul-de-sac.

The United Nations framework and the Kyoto Protocol

For these nations, all signatories to Kyoto, the Protocol constitutes the essential lynchpin in building and developing a global consensus on addressing climate change.

Indeed, even the US signed on to the recent G8 Summit communiqué that recognised the need to work within the existing international framework of the United Nations making Australia’s isolation on this point complete.

Let me make it clear.

The international community have been working towards the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol since it was first signed in 1997. Mr Howard might try and call it the ‘New Kyoto’. Others call it ‘Kyoto Plus’. Or the ‘post 2012 framework’.

Whatever it is called, it is an agreement that builds on Kyoto rather than supplants it.

I’d like to take a few moments to give a potted history of the Protocol as it is important to understand where we’ve been and where the Howard Government has taken us on climate change.

Many Australians may not be aware that in 1997 Australia was ready to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.

In fact, ten years ago the Prime Minister described the Protocol as “a win for the environment, and a win for Australian jobs”.

For many years Australia was a positive driving force in building a global response to climate change.

Following the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was signed by nearly every country in the international system, including Australia and the US.

It established an overall framework for intergovernmental efforts to tackle the challenge of climate change and aims to avoid dangerous climate change.  The UNFCCC has since been ratified by 191 countries, including Australia.

The Kyoto Protocol sits under the Convention and sets out a plan of action.  Australia and the United States have refused to ratify the Protocol.

One of the key principles behind the Protocol is for developed countries to take the lead, with much higher per capita emissions than developing countries and as the main contributors of historic emissions.  Developing countries agreed to follow at a later time as part of subsequent commitment periods.

Australia was very close to ratifying. We had negotiated an increase in emissions by 8% over 1990 levels. This was one of the most generous allocations, due to a special ‘Australia’ clause that allowed massive amounts of land clearing to be factored into our target.

Only Iceland’s target was more generous, with the overall average target equivalent to a 5% reduction for developed countries.

By 2002 after Mr Howard had consulted with President Bush, the Prime Minister was walking away from Kyoto.

The early UN involvement in this issue is important.  Under the Howard Government, it has become fashionable to denounce the United Nations in the most strident, headline-catching terms.

My colleague, Robert McClelland – the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs – has suggested that for some conservative politicians bashing the United Nations has become a blood sport.

I mention this because I do not believe that the Prime Minister’s enviro-scepticism flows exclusively from some narrow, bottom line view of the national interest.  It also stems from an ideological aversion to multilateralism.

How else can we explain the perversity of refusing to ratify Kyoto, while claiming to be on track to meeting its target?   

How else can we explain the blind faith in voluntary agreements like the Asia Pacific Partnership under which ABARE’s best case is for global emissions to double by 2050 with a 70% increase in Australia’s emissions.

It is also perhaps a sign of John Howard’s stubbornness and old thinking.

Once Mr Howard had opposed ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, it became something of an article of faith for him.  

Just as in Iraq, so it is with climate change, where it seems no matter how disastrous the flow on effects, no hint of change will be tolerated.

G8 Summit outcomes

How far out-of-touch Australia is with key centres of world opinion was highlighted earlier this month by the deliberations of the G8 in Heiligendamm, Germany.

The G8 communiqué stated:


They went on to commit to achieving the goal of a 50% cut in global emissions by 2050 and invited the major emerging economies to join in this endeavour.

Critically they said:


It could not be put any plainer than that. The pathway to the next phase of the global treaty on climate change is via the Bali conference.

One of the most significant aspects, missed by most Australian media, was for the first time, the United States moving away from a purely voluntary approach to reducing emissions, and indicating in principle support for long term targets and commitment to the United Nations process.

Yet subsequent even to this announcement the Prime Minister was talking the UN process down, on 26 June suggesting a climate change agreement “doesn't necessarily have to be within the UN framework".  

The fact is that it has been Mr Howard and his government who have expressed, since the initial flurry of willingness, the most hostility toward Kyoto, and towards measurable and immediate steps to reign in greenhouse pollution.

The consequences of our inaction

Failure to ratify Kyoto has had three broad effects; damage to our reputation, forgone economic opportunity and lack of direct participation in the climate change treaty process.

The reputation damage is about welching on the deal, refusing to be a good international citizen.

Australia has gone from being an international leader on environmental diplomacy to an international spoiler. We were a key country in achieving a global agreement to address the hole in the ozone layer and to protect World Heritage Areas.

Yet we are now undermining international progress.  On the one hand arguing that effective action will damage the economy, yet on the other hand arguing that the Kyoto Protocol does not go far enough and that’s why we won’t ratify it.

Australia’s reputation affects our capacity to influence the global negotiations and it affects how other countries are prepared to engage with us.  In short, it affects our credibility and our reputation as an honest broker.

The issue of foregone economic opportunity is critical.

The failure to ratify has meant Australian companies have been unable to directly participate in the growing carbon markets – the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol and the largest individual scheme – the European Emissions Trading Scheme.

The CDM allows foreign investment in projects to cut emissions whilst addressing the development needs of emerging economies.

In 2007 it is estimated the CDM Market will be worth €4.3 billion, while the total international carbon market will be worth €23.6 billion – A$37 billion.

Business has been clear about the consequences of the government’s approach, with Pacific Hydro saying “growth in Australia has been held back due to Australia not signing the Kyoto Protocol…”

Finally, Australia has dealt itself out of the game by refusing to take a seat at the table where the rest of the developed world is shaping the global agreement for tackling climate change.
 
Whatever new arrangements emerge from the various discussions underway and planned, one thing is clear, it will happen through the United Nations Framework. And Kyoto, in whatever form it takes in the second period, will be the integral component of these deliberations.

Australia’s formal submission to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change makes it plain that Australia has much to lose by not having a seat at the table. That submission states:


By not taking our seat at the table, Australia unnecessarily limits its influence on future developments with respect to; emissions trading rules and regulations, carbon offset rules, tackling avoided deforestation, accounting rules, compliance and penalties and the shape of future markets in which we will eventually have to compete.

And by not taking our seat we lose the chance to drive international progress to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Sadly, when Australia speaks about climate change on the international stage, the first thing that comes to the minds of foreign officials is that we welched on Kyoto - we signed the treaty, negotiated a favourable deal but then refused to ratify.

Which brings me to an initiative the Australian Government sets great store by. This is the Asia – Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6), which it claims to be complementary to Kyoto – presumably because those members of the Partnership, which have ratified Kyoto - Japan, India, China and Korea – insisted on this.

Labor welcomes any additional initiatives that lead to further greenhouse reductions. We will need partnerships between countries and between groups of countries, and partnership with industry and civil society. But I have to say, based on what we’ve seen so far, I have my doubts about the AP6.

The next AP6 meeting, which was to be held in India this year, has been cancelled.  Eighteen months after its launch, Australia has only spent $2 million of the funds it allocated to AP6, the US has only allocated $27 million and no other AP6 nation has committed any funds at all.

This stands in stark contrast to the billions of funds that are already flowing under the Kyoto Protocol.

The APEC opportunity

The Prime Minister has made grand claims on behalf of the forthcoming Sydney APEC meeting saying:


If only this were true or that Mr Howard was credible on this issue.

Mr Howard will doubtless try and spin it to the Australian public that whatever outcome is achieved it is what he has been arguing for.

In the lead up to the G8 Summits in Germany and the UK, Chancellor Merkel and Tony Blair clearly outlined what they expected the summits to achieve in relation to climate change.

Mr Howard hasn’t done that yet in relation to the APEC meeting.

The Prime Minister suggested the Sydney meeting could agree to a so-called ‘pledge and review’ framework which allows countries flexibility to frame objectives and actions in a wide range of different forms.

But this kind of voluntary action in the absence of broader agreed objectives is not the answer. In fact, this is the kind of commitment already undertaken by China and India of which Mr Howard is so dismissive.

Kevin Rudd was right when he says “pledge and review” sounds like pledge before the election, and review after the election.

Today I would like to recommend a set of objectives for the upcoming APEC meeting to improve the prospects for real progress in Bali in December. That APEC members agree:

1. To participate fully in negotiations under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.


2. That any global agreement includes targets for global cuts in emissions that avoid dangerous climate change.


3. To include clear and effective processes for technology transfers within the UN framework.

4. To work towards including avoided deforestation in the Kyoto Protocol as a key opportunity to reduce global emissions.


5. That any bilateral or multilateral cooperation on emissions trading be consistent with established global rules.


Labor will restore Australia’s international leadership on climate change

Labor is absolutely committed to building a national consensus on climate change.  

That’s why Kevin Rudd convened a National Climate Change Summit in Canberra on 31 May, bringing together some of the nation’s best thinkers from business, science and the community.

Kevin Rudd has stated that the first thing he would do as Prime Minister is to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.  

A Rudd Labor Government would participate fully in the Bali conference in December - the most critical climate change meeting yet.

We are committed to working closely with nations in the region in combating climate change and supporting adaptation measures. This is important as vulnerability to sea level rise is greatest in the Asia Pacific region, especially for low lying Pacific island states and our closest neighbour PNG.

The Leader of the Opposition announced here on 5 July that Australia would meet its Millennium Development Goals by 2015. That was a significant announcement, committing Labor to an interim target of 0.5% of gross national income to development assistance.  

On 11 July, Labor’s Foreign Affairs spokesman, Robert McClelland, announced a Rudd Labor Government will take a proposal to the next Trilateral Strategic Dialogue with our Japanese and American partners to commission a Trilateral Climate Change and National Security Assessment.  

The Assessment would identify the major regional security threats raised by global warming.

I spent well over a decade before entering Parliament working on environment issues including the challenge of climate change. Its scope and scale struck me as requiring large doses of leadership and vision.

But leadership and vision on this paramount issue have been noticeably absent during eleven years of Howard rule.

It’s now time to deliver climate change solutions to a world that needs them, and for our farmers, fishers, businesses, indigenous, for people in communities large and small across our region and the world, whose interests are inextricably bound up in a world on the precipice of climate chaos, there is no greater task.

Under a Rudd Labor Government Australia will come in from the fringes.  We will become a positive, constructive presence in international affairs – a good international citizen - and we are resolutely committed to starting Australia on the climate friendly path so needed for our precious planet.

Listen to the audio of this speech [external site]