Paris Agreement a bridge too far but bureaucrats were blind to that

Here’s a quiz. What do Ecuador, South Sudan and Romania have in common? No idea? How about Ireland, Sri Lanka and Panama? Still no idea?

Let me put it another way. What did Nicaragua and Syria have in common? They were the only countries in the world that didn’t sign up to the Paris Agreement on climate, an international agreement with the ostensible aim of restricting the rise of world temperatures to 2C or less by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. You’ll be pleased to know Syria has now signed on. The civil war in Nicaragua is not helping that country focus on Paris; it had previously rejected signing on ­because the then government didn’t regard the agreement as ambitious enough.

Let’s be clear about one thing — the Paris Agreement does not bind any of the signatories. Individual countries are free to set their own targets and may legislate or not — but this is all done at the individual country level. There are no direct penalties for failure to comply with the targets set.

If you look at the list of countries that have lined up for agreed emissions reduction targets, it would be a very brave person who predicts that even a slim majority of them will take any notice at all. And bear in mind, there are different rules for developing countries, including China.

 

China is responsible for 28 per cent of the world’s emissions and this percentage is rising. Under the terms of the Paris Agreement, China is only required to place a ceiling on its emissions by 2030. Its emissions will continue to grow until then, dwarfing the lower emissions that other countries such as Australia might achieve.

And then there is the complete game-changer of the exit of the US from the Paris Agreement. While this does not take full effect until 2020, note that the US accounts for 15 per cent of world emissions. At this point, China, India (which is treated similarly to China) and the US contribute 54 per cent of world emissions but none of these countries is an effective party to the agreement.

There is no doubt that former prime minister Tony Abbott is correct to blame our bureaucrats for handing out extraordinarily bad advice to his government in relation to Australia’s proposed commitment to the Paris Agreement. Note that the Abbott government agreed to reduce emissions ­between 26 and 28 per cent over 2005 levels by 2030.

Observe the vaulting ambition of this target relative to our previous international emissions pledge of a 5 per cent cut to 2000 levels by 2020. While the government points out this undertaking will be met, it is only because of manipulation of the figures through the inclusion of Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry.

This effectively lopped off a large quantum of emissions while doing the farmers in the eye. If ­LULUCF is excluded from the calculation, the emissions figures look very different and have continued to rise, partly in line with strong population growth.

So what explains the dud ­advice the Abbott government was offered? Given the dominance of climate-obsessed public servants and the virtue-signalling crowd in Foreign Affairs and Trade, the guidance was always going to be faulty and misguided.

You can still hear the phrases: Australia must do its bit (we ­account for 1.3 per cent of world emissions); we cannot afford to be an international pariah; lower emissions will be good for the economy or will do minimal harm; electricity prices could even fall.

But here’s the thing, out of ­pretty much every country in the world, Australia was least suited to sign up to meet large reductions in emissions. In terms of cuts to emissions intensity per person, the target of 26 to 28 per cent puts us at the top of the pile of signatories.

Why do I say that Australia is among the least suited? We are — or at least we have been — a fossil-fuel-intensive economy in which the vast majority of our electricity has been sourced from coal.

We have had wads of cheap, ­reliable electricity and this has spurred investment in energy ­intensive plants. These operations have also played to our strength as a country with massive deposits of coal, iron ore, aluminium, lead, nickel and other metals.

What we don’t have is any ­nuclear-powered electricity — it is banned by legislation — and very little hydro power, the latter ­because of ­topography.

We also have an extensive and productive agricultural sector, with the third-largest herds of ­livestock in the world. Note that farming often requires tree clearing to achieve maximum output but this is restricted under our commitment to Paris. Aquaculture is also a growing industry.

Making up 13 per cent of Australia’s emissions, primary industry will be forced to scale back if it is to meet emissions reduction targets. This will be damaging to our farmers, but the bureaucrats in Canberra probably never gave their economic welfare more than a passing thought.

And then there are the large distances of this continent. Car and truck travel are unavoidable features for most of us living in this country. And this often involves travelling large distances, which involves relatively high emissions.

Imposing new emissions standards on vehicles, a policy being considered by Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg, will inflict disproportionate economic costs on Australia. The scope for the use of (unsubsidised) electric vehicles is limited and requires reliable electricity, in any case.

The final point is the complete disconnect between the Turnbull government’s pursuit of high population growth and its ambitious Paris Agreement target. Our rate of population growth — about 1.6 per cent a year — is one of the highest among developed countries and is, in part, responsible for driving emissions growth. For this reason alone, you might think that the government would reconsider its attitude to mass ­immigration.

There is no doubt that if we had our time over again, a wise government would have considered much more carefully the size of the emissions reduction target to be pledged under the Paris Agreement. It might have even considered the option of refusing to sign.

But a new and inexperienced government with a majority of wets in the cabinet didn’t stand a chance against the powerful persuasion of zealous public servants. At this rate, we will just have to take the economic damage on the chin, knowing we make a trivial contribution to world emissions.

Mind you, when large numbers of large industrial plants that rely on affordable, dispatchable electricity close down, we may inadvertently meet out Paris Agreement targets.