The upshot of the Kyoto climate-change conference puts Australia out on a limb. Australia is the only industrialised nation other than Iceland and Norway which is permitted to increase its greenhouse gas emissions (on a base of 1990). All other nations have undertaken to reduce theirs.
At first blush that is very disquieting. Australia is seen as the spoilt brat of the industrialised world. It seems as if every other country has given in to Australian demands just to get a unanimous agreement, so everyone can leave Kyoto feelings they have achieved something.
However, if the truth be known, it is not just Australia behaving in a selfish way. It is too simplistic to put each nation in a table of greenhouse-emission reductions on the 1990 base and assume that environmental effort is directly related to the percentage of reduction (or increase).
If, for now, we take as proven that greenhouse gases are changing the climate, then it is the total output that counts. On that score the negotiators at Kyoto were wrong in not agreeing to the Australian proposition that land-clearing efforts be included in greenhouse targets. On the question of the effort and sacrifice each nation should be required to put in, Kyoto got it wrong on several counts. It set 1990 emissions as the benchmark. That benchmark makes things fairly easy for eastern European countries, Russia and Germany. Eastern Europe was going to close or clean up the environmentally disgusting and hopelessly inefficient factories of the communist regime anyway. Their pledges at Kyoto do not amount to much extra effort than what they were going to do anyway. In Germany’s case, the old industries of East Germany, which were still belching in 1990, are being closed, modernised or cleaned up, Kyoto or not. Many of Russia’s dirty factories were internationally uncompetitive and were closing anyway.
Then there is the US position. The extra sacrifice required of the US is not great. Under the Kyoto regime it will be able to buy greenhouse-emission credits from countries that do not use their quota. These will be going fairly cheaply. And in any event, the US Senate might not ratify the treaty. Fine words in Kyoto might not translate into legal commitment in Washington.
Many nations in Kyoto have been quite selfish while sounding pious.
But the more pertinent point is that Kyoto’s starting point (if you accept the greenhouse theory) was wrong. Nine of the world’s 10 warmest recorded years have been since 1983, and this year looks like being the warmest recorded. If you accept the link between gas emissions from industrialisation with these recorded increases in world temperatures, then 1990 does not look like a sound base. By 1990 the damage was done and to continue at that rate will not reverse the damage or even stop. The damage is likely to continue.
Of course, there is no certain proof. All links in the greenhouse theory can be questioned. Is the world warming at all? Do the gases cause rises in temperature? Will rises in temperature cause more damage than benefit? But when the world balances the possibility of horrific damage from climate change (as certified by virtually all leading scientists in the field) against the small economic detriment of curtailing emissions, it would be folly not to act. But in acting, we should engage in less humbug, selfishness and exaggeration.