Should Australia be doing more to encourage international action on climate change

...

Australian politics on climate change started as being a ‘good international citizen’ in 1988 with the Labor PM Bob Hawke planning the highest reduction percentage of GHG emissions of that time. However, because of the weak global political agenda on climate change, Australia did not do much to prevent this problem in the international arena and it became a 'bad international citizen'. Accordingly, Paul Keating administration shifted the focus to the national borders, only implementing GHG reduction emissions policies domestically, taking care to not affect the state’s growth economy. This political dominance was also clearly reflected on Howard’s administration in which he just not complied with the Kyoto Protocol as well as he demanded an increase in the GHG emissions target and the introduction of land-clearing clause in the agenda. Furthermore, Howard also put aside interest on renewable energy technology and research on climate change (McDonald, 2013, p. 487).

On the contrary, Kevin Rudd administration tried to rescue the image of a good citizen by ratifying the Kyoto Protocol and outlining the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) when he came to power in the 2007 (McDonald, 2013, p. 488). In this period, the government contributed with $328 million for the International Climate Change Adaptation Initiative (Pickering & Mitchell, 2017, p. 114). Rudd also changed the discourse on climate change emphasizing that it is a national security threat and even gained the support of the Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull. However, Turnbull could not convince his colleagues and the CPRS did not come into force. This bipartisanship completely disappeared when Tony Abbott became the Opposition Leader and forced Rudd to put the CPRS behind. Abbott had in his favor the global financial crisis of 2008 and the discourse was once again shifted to the need for a strong domestic economy (McDonald, 2013, p. 488). Julia Gillard’s 2010 administration finally had the carbon tax scheme approved by the Parliament, however the biggest polluters were still exempted from these taxes, proving that multinational corporations have a great influence in the Australian’s foreign policy (McDonald, 2013, p. 489). Since 2013 Australia has being ruled by Liberals who support short-term economic growth and free trade regime above environmental responsibility actions, which is reflected in the decline of climate finance for the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (Pickering & Mitchell, 2017, p. 118).

The most compelling evidence of the current administration against GHG reduction emission actions is the debate about the approval of the Carmichael project. This $21.5 billion project predicts the exploration of a coal mine in the north Galilee Basin in Central Queensland, which will be the largest in Australia. The project also includes the construction of a 189-kilometre rail line and the enlargement of the Abbot Point port where the coal will be transported to India, as showed below (Carmichael Coal Mine and Rail Project, n.d., p. E-i-viii).

[pic 4]

In economic terms, the company estimates an increase in the Gross Regional Product (GRP), household income and employment. During the construction phase they estimate $655.2 million and 5,502 full-time jobs for Mackay region and Queensland per annum. During the operational they estimate $458.6 million and 14,122 full-time jobs for Mackay region and Queensland per annum (Carmichael Coal Mine and Rail Project, n.d., p. E-viii-ix). It is easy to understand why the PM Turnbull and Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk support the project if we only look at the economic aspect of it. She argues that it had ‘undergone a comprehensive and transparent environmental assessments process, according to state and commonwealth legislation, and hundreds of conditions apply’ (McKenna and Kelly, 2017).

Although the figures are very attractive, the environmental aspect of this project is not. However, the company argues that the project will not have significant GHG emissions to Queensland (Carmichael Coal Mine and Rail Project n.d., p. E-xxii-xxxi). By contrast, a report explains that in one year, the mine will generate more GHG emission than countries such as Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Vietnam, New Delhi, Amsterdam, Austria, and Tokyo in the same period (Taylor, 2015). At large, the coal mine alone will exceed the ‘0.5 percent of the entire global carbon budget’ which is the maximum amount of CO2 that could be emitted to not exceed the 2°C committed to in the Paris Agreement (Reside, Mappin, Watson, Chapman and Keaney, 2016). It is a ‘Carbon Bomb’, marks Hunter (2017). The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) and Hunter state that the project will destroy the Great Barrier Reef and collaborate to global warming and the consequent coral bleaching. This will reflect on Australia tourism, losing one million tourists per year, which corresponds to $1 billion and 10,000 jobs (ACF estimates a loss of 70,000 jobs), even the global economy will suffer a loss of $1 trillion (Australian Conservation Foundation, n.d. and Hunter, 2017).

The company admits that impacts on the environment will occur, however it places the GHG emissions, air quality, aquatic ecology, and waste in the low impact category (Carmichael Coal Mine and Rail Project, n.d., p. E-x). Moreover, the company analysis shows a huge loss of native vegetation and natural habitats, degradation of terrestrial and aquatic habitats, loss and death of fauna and flora, including Australian animals in extinction, and landscape degradation. Lastly, the report projects the potential to increase the severity or frequency of natural hazards such as flooding, water quality, water availability, and air pollution (Carmichael Coal Mine and Rail Project, n.d., p. E-xii-xxi).

[pic 5]

https://www.acf.org.au/amazing_stopadani_roadshow

Contrary to Hunter and the ACF analysis, Adani reports zero impact upon any World Heritage areas, National Heritage locations or the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (Carmichael Coal Mine and Rail Project, n.d., p. E-xii-xiii). However, the redeveloping of the Abbot Point will require dredging the seabed, affecting the marine life and migratory birds. Moreover, sediments from dredging are more likely to spread over the sea grass and corals increasing the chance of bleaching (Reside et. al, 2016).

Australia has nineteen properties considered World Heritage by UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, n.d.). Among them is the Great Barrier Reef. In 2015, the Federal and Queensland governments elaborated The Reef 2050 Plan, a 35-year