Climate change aims a world apart

GLOBAL climate change talks remain split over whether a proposed deal to cut carbon dioxide emissions should be legally binding.

GLOBAL climate change talks remain split over whether a proposed deal to cut carbon dioxide emissions after 2020 should be legally binding, while India, the world’s third-largest emitter, has made clear it considers tackling poverty to be more important than combating global warming.

As Foreign Minister Julie Bishop arrived at the climate change talks in Lima, Peru, Australia remained on the outer over its decision to scrap the carbon tax, as well as being at odds with the US on whether a climate agreement should be legally binding and with India over demands that developing nations also make ambitious cuts to emissions. The issue of a legally binding agreement has been a concern since a timetable for a deal in Paris next year was agreed to in Durban in 2011.

British climate change economist Nicholas Stern said yesterday that legally binding targets were not necessary for a Paris deal to be considered a success.

“Some may fear that commitments that are not internationally legally binding may lack credibility,” Lord Stern said.

“That, in my view, is a serious mistake. The sanctions available under the Kyoto Protocol, for ­example, were notionally legally binding but were simply not ­credible and failed to guarantee domestic implementation of commitments.”

He said ambitions for emissions reductions could be “encouraged by, and captured in, international processes and in ways that promote increased ­ambition over time”.

Lord Stern’s view is in line with the views of the US and China but at odds with the EU and comments by Ms Bishop, who told Associated Press that without legally binding commitments in Paris, any agreement would amount to “nothing more than aspirations”.

Environment Minister Greg Hunt has said previously he did not expect a legally binding agreement in Paris but rather a “pledge and review” scheme, where countries might commit legally to reporting their emissions but not to post-2020 targets.

Despite pressure, Australia has resisted outlining its post-2020 carbon dioxide reduction targets. Also, it has refused to contribute to a $10 billion fund to assist developing nations to cope with the impacts of climate change, with Ms Bishop arguing that money was better spent as foreign aid through bilateral agreements.

Combined with the Abbott government’s repeal of the carbon tax and vocal support for the coal industry, Australia’s position on emissions ambition and financing have put Australia on the outer at this year’s negotiations.

Ms Bishop has said Australia would determine its actions on the basis of what other nations agreed to do.

She said Australia would be “happy” to consider a Paris accord with binding emissions targets depending on what other countries were prepared to put on the table.

“The message that I will be presenting on Australia’s behalf (in Peru) is that the new agreement should establish a common playing field for all countries to take climate action from 2020 and seek commitments from all the major economies to reducing emissions,” she said.

She has been critical of the announcement by China that its carbon dioxide emissions would “peak” in 2030, describing it as “business as usual”.

The Lima meeting is expected to refine details of a global agreement that will be considered in Paris next year. Key issues are expected to remain unresolved, however.

India has made it clear that it considers reducing poverty to be a higher priority.

An official statement issued by the Indian government said it would insist any agreement in Paris follow the Kyoto Protocol, which allowed developed and developing countries to be treated differently.