A display of conviction

 

This topic came to mind while following the recent Glasgow conference on climate change.  This was a meeting of experts and government representatives from around the world within a secretariat of the United Nations set up in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro that provides the framework for a convention on climate change (UNFCCC - United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change).

 

There are 197 country signatories on this framework, from which were derived the Kyoto Agreement of 1997 and the Paris Agreement in 2015.1  Now this year’s Glasgow Agreement is being added.

 

I’m using the singular (agreement) although in reality the conference delegates discuss and issue decisions divided into tens of documents2, the most well known being the Glasgow Climate Pact.3

 

The signatories of the convention, who proceed by consensus, recognised (paragraph I(3)) that global temperatures have already increased by 1.1C above pre-industrial times due to mankind’s activities, and that their impact are being felt everywhere.  They also decided (paragraph IV(16)) to do their utmost so that the increase in temperature stops at 1.5C to minimse the risks and impacts.

 

The signatories continued by recognising (paragraph IV(17)) that for this aim to be achieved, carbon pollution needs to be reduced by 45% up to 2030 relative to 2010 levels, that is within the next 9 years, and that this reduction needs to be deep, rapid and sustained.

 

One of the signatories of all the decisions, including the ones I’ve quoted above, was Australia, and the day after the closure of negotiations, quickly issued a clarification that Australia will not be adopting this aim, not now nor in the future4, but will keep aiming for a 26-28% decrease in emissions, and to blunt the impact somewhat stated that it expects an additional reduction of another 9% by that time by 2030.

 

You could just imagine the conviction with which the Australian representatives signed the Glasgow Pact.  It’s a conviction of not giving a damn to what they were inking, and that they would be going their own way, regardless.  Remember that while the Prime Minister was in Glasgow to lead the Australian delegation there, the head of the partner National Party in the Coalition, Barnaby Joyce, who was the acting Prime Minister, was declaring that his party had not signed anything in Glasgow!5

 

The world can have great confidence in the intentions by the Australians for the agreement papers in Glasgow, i.e. that the many pages would find immediate use in the ablutions in Canberra.

 

There was disappointment by those who wished for more concrete action, like for example an increase in finance for poorer nations to a level of $100 billion per year (not achieved), and a promise to phase out the use of coal (what was agreed was phasing down) and others.  On the other hand, there were those in Australia who celebrated that these aims were not achieved, especially members of parliament whose seat is found in regions containing coal mines or coal-fired power plants.

 

I don’t see the conference as having been a failure.  It is true  that not all necessary aims were agreed.  But consider:

• •it is now clear that the time of fossil fuels like coal, oil and methane is drawing to a close; 

• •alternatives to these are being developed rapidly, and as soon as their costs are cheaper than the fossil fuels, the economy will itself ensure that the latter will dwindle. 

 

From the Australian side, despite the merry-go-round, the government is no longer in its rhetoric associating photovoltaic energy with an increase in prices, but with reduced prices, and is realising that there are huge opportunities to be at the forefront of the industrial development of clean energy technology, and is ready to throw a lot of money in that direction.

 

Finally, I expect there will be some economic imposts by the European Union given that Australia does not seem to be ready to commit to do the heavy lifting for the changes necessary this decade until 2030, as did the other developed countries.  I wouldn’t be surprised if the government’s line gradually changes in the months to come (if they are returned to government next year that is), as it already changed when it was finally accepted that carbon emissions should not be higher than their abatement (i.e. net zero) by the year 2050, a decision that was only achieved after much deep-chest coughing.

 

Money talks.

 

 

 

1https://unfccc.int/about-us/about-the-secretariat, retrieved 17/11/2021

2https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/conferences/glasgow-climate-change-conference-october-november-2021/outcomes-of-the-glasgow-climate-change-conference, retrieved 17/11/2021

3https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/cop26_auv_2f_cover_decision.pdf, retrieved 17/11/2021

4https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/election-battleground-morrison-government-insists-2030-target-is-fixed-despite-glasgow-20211114-p598qr.html, retrieved 18/11/2021

5https://eminetra.co.nz/barnaby-joyce-states-that-the-national-party-has-not-signed-the-cop26-agreement-and-australia-is-satisfied-with-its-goals-cop26/420728/, retrieved 18/11/2021