They say ‘Burden’, I say ‘Opportunity’
Australia’s Sydney Morning Herald is running a story today “Polluters could shift greenhouse burden to poor countries, say critics“, that I really need to take to task.
AUSTRALIA’S biggest greenhouse polluters will be given carte blanche to shift the burden of cutting their emissions to poorer countries under the Federal Government’s proposed climate change laws.
Lawyers examining the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme say it allows any big Australian polluter to buy unlimited “offset” pollution credits in developing countries under a United Nations scheme, the Clean Development Mechanism, which encourages rich nations to invest in clean energy in poorer nations.
“A firm could discharge its entire obligation under the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme by the surrender of so-called eligible international emissions units,” Jason Johnston, from law firm Freehills, told the Herald.
The author, by using the pejorative term ‘burden’ skews the discussion immediately and plays on the general public’s latent xenophobia. The term they should have used is ‘opportunity’. Mr Johnston, a lawyer and someone I imagine who choses his words very carefully, throws in a casual so-called
in front of the words eligible international emissions units
, seeking, it seems, to cast doubt on the word ‘eligible’; a cloud of uncertainty over their credibility with his clever word-play. It’s all quite cynical.
Here’s some cold, hard facts for you.
- Greenhouse gas emissions are a global problem
- Emissions are currently rising faster in the developing world than the developed world
- Emissions reduced sooner are worth more in terms of what I like to call ‘Net Present Environmental Value’ than emissions reduced later
- The goal of the Kyoto Protocol, and the CRPS, is maximum emissions reduction for the lowest cost in the shortest time.
- Developing countries are, by-and-large, poor, many dirt-poor, and the economic progress of developed countries has almost always come at the expense of these poorer nations.
- Aid dependancy does not offer a desirable, honourable or sustainable future.
The Australian proposal allows for unlimited import of Kyoto units such as Certified Emissions Redution units (CERs) developed under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). CDM projects combine traditional development outcomes with carbon abatement outcomes. One CER really does equate to one tonne of CO2e either removed from, or prevented from entering the atmosphere. Plus that CER has also contributed to easing someone off of aid-dependency, has probably helped provide a cleaner source of power for that person and is helping that person’s society leap-frog the polluting technologies the developed countries have used, with a net benefit to all of humanity. The development objectives of CDM projects are just as important as the carbon benefits.
So, if, in Australia, it is economically efficient to outsource emissions reduction to a developing country where they really do need the money, the jobs, the technology and the self-esteem that comes from being weaned off charity, we should not stand in the way. Criticism of the import of CERs and other Kyoto units is based on a misguided belief that offsetting does not lead to genuine emissions reduction, and a broader fear of foreigners.
CERs and soon we also hope REDD (Reduced Emissions From Deforestation and Degradation) offer myriad benefits to developing nations and genuine emissions reduction. We can’t let petty racism and ignorance be the guides for our environmental policies. The Government is doing the right thing by Australia by keeping the costs of emissions reduction as low as possible, and the right thing by the planet by participating in schemes that serve broader, ambitious, planet-positive goals. — DS