Bali high, Bali low

Christine Milne in Bali

The key turning point was when Prime Minister Rudd unceremoniously stomped on the Australia delegation for daring to align Australia with the goal of cutting rich country emissions by 25-40% by 2020, which, as we know, is the absolute minimum that the climate science requires. The delegation had told the conference that Australia accepts the Vienna Declaration – a declaration which sets out that target range – and the rest of the world understood that to mean that Australia was agreeing to negotiate using those figures as a starting point. Rudd’s public rebuke, saying his Government would not commit to any 2020 targets until the Garnaut Review is completed, was worrying.
December 11, 2007 by Christine Milne

Belated greetings and postings from Bali, where there was genuine excitement and warm good will last week when the new Government announced its decision to ratify the Kyoto Protocol immediately and rejoin the global effort to tackle climate change.

Sad to say, that good will is already being squandered and has already begun to turn to consternation and suspicion, as the official Australian channels return to form on the global climate negotiations.

The key turning point was when Prime Minister Rudd unceremoniously stomped on the Australia delegation for daring to align Australia with the goal of cutting rich country emissions by 25-40% by 2020, which, as we know, is the absolute minimum that the climate science requires. The delegation had told the conference that Australia accepts the Vienna Declaration – a declaration which sets out that target range – and the rest of the world understood that to mean that Australia was agreeing to negotiate using those figures as a starting point. Rudd’s public rebuke, saying his Government would not commit to any 2020 targets until the Garnaut Review is completed, was worrying.

Surely Rudd, as a former diplomate, understands that there is no inconsistency between accepting a global negotiating range for emission targets now, and developing a national position within, or beyond, that range in the following months.

Prime Minister Rudd’s welcome here in Bali will be conditional on his immediate clarification of Australia position on 2020 targets. He cannot hide behind the Garnaut report figleaf here.

It is no exaggeration to say that Australia’s whole positioning in the negotiations for the next 2 years will depend on convincing the world now that Australia is genuine. Mr Rudd has to decide whether his election represents a genuine change or whether we are continuing the spoiler role of the last decade. Are we now going to be a millstone inside the negotiations instead of outside, returning to the 1997 formula, or are we really going to take the lead?

Perceptions over here have not been helped by the fact that the Australian delegation remains overloaded with vested interests from the coal, aluminium and logging industries, the CFMEU, and public servant negotiators still steeped in the attitude of the former PM.

It is an ominous sign that the Ambassador for the Environment, Jan Adams, believes that the 25-40% target will never be agreed to here in Bali, when the fact that it is in the Chair’s Draft of the Bali Mandate indicates there is significant support for it. Maybe her position is informed by the people she’s been seen lunching and breakfasting with – John Daley of the Australian Industry Greenhouse Network (a famous climate sceptic and one of the infamous ‘greenhouse mafia’) and Ron Knapp, the head of the Australian Aluminium Council and one of John Howard’s key players throughout climate negotiations for many years.

But it is Australia’s hypocrisy on logging and deforestation, evident for all to see, which is creating the biggest problem.

There has been a big push from around the world for the past 2 years, concluding here at Bali, to find a way to include the protection of forests in the post 2012 climate treaty. The ‘reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation’ (REDD) work would have a clear benefit for the Amazon, the Congo and countries such as PNG, Brazil and Indonesia. But it would also have a significant impact on Australia, since the inclusion of degradation makes it clear that logging substantially reduces the amount of carbon stored in a forest.

The definition of degradation is critical. There will be intense efforts to water down any resolution and the National Association of Forest Industries have already flown in reinforcements, attempting to undermine an agreement on REDD which would destroy their propaganda that the ‘management’ of native forests in Australia is carbon positive.

With exquisite timing, on the very day that bulldozers went into the Styx Valley in Tasmania to clear-fell ancient forests holding 1400 tonnes of carbon per hectare, Peter Garrett stood in front of a banner here saying “Save Wildlife. Reduce Carbon Emissions” and talked about biodiversity benefits of saving forests. He was, of course, talking about the Indonesian orang-utan. Not the Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle.

It seems tragically clear that the world’s leaders still lack the political will to act on the very clear and urgent climate science. Whilst every country is happy to declare its commitment to save the climate, the negotiations in Bali reflect the 19th century view that national sovereignty overrides global responsibility. The process does not seem capable of addressing the fact that the climate crisis is global but the political imperatives are domestic.

I welcome the Chair’s Draft including a 25-40% reduction by 2020 from rich countries and an explicit statement of urgency that global emissions must peak and begin to be reduced in 10-15 years. But the lack of political will is evident in the fact that these figures are in the preamble, and not the text of the draft decision.

Canada has taken up where Australia left off as the dead weight, undermining and blocking progress. The Canadian team’s negotiating instructions were leaked yesterday, showing that they were tasked with sabotaging the conference by promoting a poison pill of demanding binding targets for developing nations without showing the leadership to work towards achieving their own targets.

The parallel with Simon Crean’s statement on Saturday, calling for binding commitments from developing nations, has not gone unnoticed.

Given the uncertainty about whether Bali will produce a roadmap with significant, science-based targets, Kevin Rudd’s role here is critical. He can either lead with the EU or he can equivocate and stall with Canada, Japan and the USA. Garnaut Review or not, Rudd’s actions here will have long-lasting implications which the world will look back on as it reflects on progress in 2012.