The mouse has roared. Prime Minister John Howard has been shown up by the ACT Environment Minister Gary Humphries. Mr Humphries announced yesterday that the ACT would set its own greenhouse-gas targets. These targets in many ways are more stringent than those to be proposed by the European countries at next week’s Kyoto conference on greenhouse gases and climate change.
Mr Humphries is at odds with his federal Liberal colleagues. Prime Minister John Howard has, rather pre-emptorally, talked himself into a fixed position. Mr Howard does not accept the European position. Nor does he accept the idea of across-the-board percentage reductions of greenhouse gases. Once again, Mr Howard defines himself in the negative. We wants a regime of different goals for different countries without defining, even in the vaguest terms, what goal he would find acceptable for Australia.
Mr Humphries has defined his position. He wants ACT greenhouse-gas emissions in 2008 to be equal to or less than the 1990 level and to fall a further 20 per cent by 2018. Of course, that does not carry the same political risk as Mr Howard would have to carry by agreeing to the European position. The ACT does not have any heavy industry. Its emissions are increasing a higher-than-average national rates so are easier to curtail. It is now moving into a more steady-state economy with lower population growth after public-sector cutbacks so that there is a certain amount of no-effort natural reductions in store. And lastly, Mr Humphries’ targets are very long range. Politically, he can take the kudos now, when the issue is hot and an election is just around the corner without worrying too much about the distant future.
That said, Mr Humphries, in being a roaring mouse in a very large carbon-emitting world, has done what he can. Many carbon emissions are beyond local control, but significant measures can be taken, in particular building policies can insist on more environmentally friendly measures. Mr Humphries has announced compulsory insulation measures for residences among 10 measures within the ACT Government’s sphere of control. He has thought globally and acted locally.
Mr Howard is in a different position. He has put his narrow view of the national interest ahead of global concern. It is now virtually indisputable that the earth is warming. The question is how much of that can be put down to human cause. It may be that the earth is in a natural warming stage and that human element is small.
Even so, we should make an intelligent assessment of risks and costs. We might make a huge effort to cut greenhouse gases only to find the earth warms anyway. We would have lost a little economic benefit and gained a little environmental cleanliness. On the other hand, if we do not cut greenhouse emissions and global warming increases with anything from marginal to catastrophic results we will ring our hands for missing the chance (however ill-defined) to avoid it. Then we might work hard to cut emissions and global warming stops.
The last, however, is unlikely. Collective efforts for the greater long-term good are extremely unusually. They are only common when the threat is immediate and tangible.
But comparing the fairly insubstantial sacrifice against the gravity of the possible consequences, the Australian would be selfish and foolish not to join any world effort at Kyoto.