TerraPass blog

Waxman Markey changes the climate in Australia

Adam Stein | July 10, 2009

Domestic legislation is part of a much grander international plan

 

I’ve argued before that it only makes sense to consider Waxman-Markey as part of ongoing, twenty-year international negotiation, not as an endpoint or a piece of standalone legislation. One problem this presents is that international relations tend to be even more sluggish, boring and inscrutable than the parliamentary maneuvering that takes place in our own Congress, and certainly a lot more difficult for voters to get energized about.

But, hey, some good news: passage of Waxman-Markey already seems to be improving the chances for climate change legislation in Australia. Australia, you may recall, shared with the United States the distinction of being one of only two industrialized nations to reject the Kyoto Protocol. Also like the United States, Australia has some of the highest per capita greenhouse gas emissions for a major economy. Also like the United States, Australia recently had one of those elections-with-consequences and reversed course on much of its climate change obstructionism. But green-minded legislators in Australia still face an uphill battle, due largely to concerns raised by conservative politicians that a cap on emissions will harm the economy. (Basically, think of Australia as the United States plus Hugh Jackman and marsupials.)

So, anyhow, the passage of Waxman-Markey seems to be eroding opposition to a proposed Australian emissions-trading bill (via Ryan Avent):

Opposition Shadow Minister for Environment Greg Hunt also voiced qualified support for the U.S. scheme.

“What we’ve seen in the United States is a step toward a comprehensive, developed-world standard. Now we want to be part of that standard,” he told Australian Broadcasting Corp radio.

“We don’t want to have a situation where Australians have completely different standards and tests for our own industries, which means that our agriculture would be destroyed if it’s not in line with America,” he said.

And this is just from passage of a climate bill in the U.S. House. One can only imagine what Senate approval of the bill will do for international negotiations.

Meanwhile, David Roberts provides a rundown of Obama’s international climate strategy that is both extensive and also already slightly out-of-date now that the G8 conference is over. But the short of it is that the White House will likely push ahead with bilateral negotiations with a handful of key countries — China, India, Russia, Brazil — at the same time that the rest of the world tries to hammer out a successor treaty to Kyoto. This bilateral approach is actually a holdover of a Bush-era policy, the key difference being that the Obama administration is actually interested in climate change.

As one would expect, each bilateral negotiation presents its own opportunities and challenges. In Brazil, the issue is deforestation. In Russia, the issue is helping to transition their extraordinarily inefficient heavy industry to more modern technology. China already has a clean energy program in place that is in many ways more aggressive than what we have in the United States, but of course the country also has a monstrous appetite for coal. India has categorically rejected a carbon cap.

And so it goes. Meanwhile, Europe is eyeing these bilateral overtures nervously, for fear that the U.S. will sidestep multilateral negotiations entirely and foist some lowest-common-denominator agreement on the rest of the world. Which is fair enough, I guess, but it seems just as likely to go the opposite way: a U.S.-driven breakthrough could help to prod the sluggish U.N. process along.

Image by Flickr user striatic.

< Previous: Recipe: charred eggplant salad with herbs and tomatoes    Next: The magic bus >

Comments


  • 1. By richard schumacher on July 15, 2009 6:22 AM

    It now appears that the atmospheric CO2 level is already high enough to eventually kill all coral reefs; see
    http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/07/coral-320-20090714.html#more

    Australia is home to the world's largest coral reef.

    We are out of time. We have to replace all coal-fired power plants with every available alternative: natural gas, nuclear, wind, Solar, and geothermal.


    Reply
  • 2. By dlmchale on July 17, 2009 5:51 PM

    Hello,
    Indeed when we look at the overwhelming data that shows we are past points of return, it is frightning. Methane release from sea floor eco-systems is a compelling rationale for understanding our time line.

    Pulling the reigns away from the coal industry to give it to the solar team is a daunting task. It can be done, yet in time; is a relative term. What do we want to live with-out? You know we need to put this argument into real context. Not to scare the children on the playground, but to understand how BIG OUR FOOTPRINT really is, I'm thinking.

    Today I had lunch with a good long time friend who still will not accept that climate change is man made, that it's cycles of nature, he's an MBA in his late 50's. Last week I drove through East LA and could see so many Citizens living the "American Dream". Big fine 2nd hand SUV's and really fine big Chevy Trucks and they are just getting to live this Dream, like so many where we have exported this lifestyle of 'consumerism' thoughout the world - just 'living the dream, baby'.

    As we approach a historic birthday for Earthday, the founders words are still in my mind, "...we might not make it out of this".

    So, I listen to my good friend Judy Bonds, who is fighting the coal Kings with everything she has; she tells us "we must RESIST" because "we are under attack". (Some might say from ourselves from easy living or handed down golden spoons.)

    So on a better up lifting note: google Sunrgi and get excited again about change and tell them 'talking heads' - you know - "where mad as hell and we ain't going to take it anymore". Give us solar at .05 a kw. Then we will not need Coal nor-nuclear; sorry about the rant. thxs


    Reply
  • 3. By parrish on July 22, 2009 7:06 AM

    I have such trouble dealing with those who are stuck on the it's-a-natural-cycle-not-man-made schtick. At this stage, it doesn't matter. It's happening. It's here. Would you really feel better dying by 'natural cycles'? Get over it! How do I talk to these people?


    Reply
  • 4. By dennis mchale on July 27, 2009 9:09 AM

    Hello Parrish,
    I know this is a late entry as I was out a few days fly fishing. I hope you will still get this post.

    When talking to skeptics (and it's ok to be skeptical-but it's not a science) I've begun using the simple natural science we've learned in elementry school; which is, it takes 2 moles (molecule) to create 1 mole (molecule) of carbon (spent fuel). This will bring the conversation quickly to what is the generation rate of recovery. You can google that information for your location. This part begins the 'I don't believe that' and then you might follow with the PPM of carbon rise generated since 1900. This of course is the Keeling 'hockey stick' but you can re-interduce it with NOAA's confirmation studies and then give the information of the most recent published report from NOAA (2nd week of June) about weather predictions.

    That is the science of it, the core. If it goes to the 'drill baby drill' talk, then give National Geo's study that simply put identifies we currently consume 3 Bbls for every 1 Bbl pumped. As that talk goes to 'yes that's why we need to drill more'; follow with the 2007 statement by Shell's CEO about 'peak oil'.

    If this gets 'well what do we do? (this could be a question answered in a few different ways)" you might take the exchange to Masdar City and this new posting: www.eyeofdubai.com/v1/news/newsdetail-31500.htm

    Best of luck Parrish, I do hope this is not to late of a posting.
    thxs, dlm


    Reply

Post a comment


AddThis Feed Button
CATEGORIES

Conservation tips
News
Politics
Science & Technology
Society
TerraPass Answers