Kevin Rudd’s emissions trading scheme is further challenged following the failure of the Copenhagen Summit to achieve strong action against climate change. The weak result from the conference means that there are no clear timetables or targets for global emissions cuts, much less any legally binding agreement. As these targets were always intended to guide at what point between 5% and 25% cuts Australia would jump in, Rudd will be left to wait until at least February 2010 to determine the depth of our efforts, just as the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme faces the Senate again.
The Copenhagen Summit ended with some very vague language indicating that global warming should be kept below two degrees, and the peaking of global and national emissions should be as soon as possible, while recognising that it will be longer for developing countries. Helping move the developing nations along is the commitment of $30 billion over the next three years from the rich to the poor in helping them adapt to climate change. This partners the commitment within the agreement of substantial finance to prevent deforestation and promote adaptation and technology development and implementation.
This begins to sound more like what Tony Abbott’s coalition is putting forth as their proposed method of cutting emissions, and further illustrates the difficulty in determining the most appropriate means by which we can move to a low carbon society at a national level.
There is some argument that rather than increase the costs of incumbent technologies such as coal–fired power via an emissions trading scheme, it would make more sense to decrease the costs of new, greener technologies such as renewable power sources by subsidising them to the point at which they become commercially competitive. Of course, the government must then be sure to ‘pick winners’ lest they be lambasted for any controversial decisions (read: desalination plant) or failures. This method would, however, mean that consumers would not be out of pocket due to an increase in costs of goods and services, and inflationary pressures would be less.
In isolation though, it also fails to introduce any form of market forces to instigate behavioural change in society, with consumers and industry able to continue high emitting or wasteful practices. In the short term, this does not appear to be an issue as the bottom line is a cut in emissions. But in the long term, it is clear that behavioural change, attitudes to consumption, and demand side abatement will be a key factor in reducing emissions as the low hanging fruit will quickly be gone, and technology improvements can only take us so far.
All this takes us back to Copenhagen, where it was hoped that there would be a significant policy commitment that reflected changing attitudes to the environment and the way we use natural resources. The poor outcome suggests that economic concerns remain at the forefront of nations’ priorities, and that perhaps market forces really are the only way to bring about a reduction in emissions.