Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

No time to rest on our Kyoto protocols

By David Madden - posted Friday, 6 May 2005

Thirteen years after the Rio Earth Summit and more than seven years after the deal was struck, the Kyoto Protocol finally came into force in February. A legally binding agreement, Kyoto represents the first concrete international effort to address global warming.

But don't start looking for that perfect beach house in Kiribati just yet. While it is an important achievement, Kyoto is not the answer to our global warming woes.

In all, 141 countries have ratified the protocol, but with the US and Australia sitting on the sidelines and major polluting developing countries such as China and India not covered by the agreement, the signatories account for only 62 per cent of 1990 global carbon emissions.


Moreover, to ensure the agreement would get sufficient signatories, the rules have been so diluted that Kyoto will have an almost negligible impact on global warming. And that's only if all signatories are able to comply. Already there are indications that some countries will struggle to meet their targets within the narrow compliance period.

Here then is the problem with Kyoto: it relies on short-term emission reduction targets for just 34 industrialised countries, imposing high costs and jeopardising compliance while generating only trivial climate benefits. It fails to provide for the participation of developing countries and eschews a sustainable long-term solution.

Champions of Kyoto have tended to dismiss such criticisms as missing the forest for the trees. But the trees are important, metaphorically and literally. Kyoto's flaws help to explain why it has taken so long to come into force and why it is so weak. If the world is serious about tackling one of the central challenges of our time, then it must frankly recognise the problems with the agreement.

But critique alone is not enough. The Prime Minister, John Howard, and his various environment ministers have been quick to criticise Kyoto, but slow to engage constructively with the issues. It is not enough to say that Australia is on track to meet its Kyoto target. Australia's negotiated target is significantly lower than the industrialised country average, yet it is the largest per capita producer of greenhouse gases in the developed world.

More important, global problems demand global solutions. Global warming will affect everyone, but it will have a particularly nasty impact on countries such as Australia. It is in our national interest to help develop an international agreement that will effectively and efficiently address climate change.

This year would be a good year for the Howard Government to try a different approach. The agreement covers only 2008 to 2012, so discussions will soon begin about the framework for post-2012.


There is also likely to be some political momentum around global warming this year. In addition to Kyoto coming into force, the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, has pledged his chairmanship of the Group of Eight industrialised nations and presidency of the EU to addressing this critical issue.

If Australia is to help build a better post-2012 agreement, three factors should be at the core.

First, all countries must be able to participate in concerted action after 2012. Developing countries are expected to account for more than half the global emissions by 2020, so it is crucial to find an equitable way of including them in the plan.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

Article edited by Angela Sassone.
If you'd like to be a volunteer editor too, click here.

First published in the Sydney Morning Herald on February 16, 2005.

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

3 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

David Madden is a co-author of Imagining Australia: Ideas for our Future along with Macgregor Duncan, Andrew Leigh, and Peter Tynan. He has worked for the World Bank and the United Nations and is currently involved in the Democrat campaign for the US elections.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by David Madden

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of David Madden
Article Tools
Comment 3 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy