Targets for failure

Of necessity this must involve them increasing their GHG emissions. This should be permitted. A fall in global GHG emissions should result from developed economies reducing their emissions until, per capita, they are the same as those of the developing countries. It should come as no surprise that both India and China have been vocal is support of this view.

Table 1: Total emissions represent about 81 per cent of 2006 global emissions (28,420.9 million tonnes) by 223 countries.

Table 1 shows the volume of GHG emissions by the 20 top emitters, ranked by their emissions, showing that China and the USA are responsible for more than 51 per cent of those emissions. It can be argued that those responsible for the highest emissions have the capacity to reduce those emissions by the greatest tonnage and should be encouraged to do so. Improved standards of living can and must be achieved, not by reducing energy but by reducing GHG emissions associated with its production.

Table 2
Source: Union of Concerned Scientists

Table 2 shows the same 20 top emitters ranked in order of GHG emissions per capita. Given the huge populations of India (1.104 billion) and China (1.313 billion) it is no surprise that both countries are ranked in the bottom four. Note that Table 1 shows them in the top four because of their significant GHG emissions in absolute terms - 7.15 billion tones or 31 per cent of total emissions by the 20 top polluters.

Little wonder that India and China strongly support the Rudd view that those with the highest per capita emissions should be required to make the biggest reductions. However, that view ignores the obvious contentions that the largest polluters have the greatest capacity to reduce emissions and can do so without having to forego further development by generating additional energy needs with lower or no emissions.

How then does Rudd justify his per capita argument? Could it be that he is motivated by the fact that both India and China are potentially immense markets for Australian coal, a product which over the next decade or longer, can not be used without increasing GHG emissions?

What is clear is that Rudd is not serious about bringing about either an Australian or global reduction in GHG emissions.

Given the total inadequacy of the targets he has adopted, neither he nor Australia can be seen by anyone as setting a good example or providing leadership in this all important area.

It is not only the inadequacy of the targets Rudd has set, it is also the ETS he intends adopting. It is a corruption of what was recommended by Garnaut. The CPRS is little more than a device for perpetuating the use of fossil fuels, particularly coal, by under-pricing carbon.

Mitigating global warming and its disastrous effects on human habitat appear to be very much a secondary consideration for government.