Road to Copenhagen
Michael Hitchens, Chief Executive Officer, 25 November 2009
A Post-Kyoto Agreement

Dump the ‘developed’/‘developing’ country
paradigm
•
•

Kyoto architecture flawed
•
•

‘advanced’/‘least-developed’ solution
‘advanced’ = Annex I plus some high/middle income
developing countries
USA, China and others cannot commit
Canada, Spain, Japan, Italy, Ireland cannot meet their
‘targets’
The concept of ‘comparable effort’
AUSTRALIAN IN DUSTRY GREENHOUSE NETWORK
2
Kyoto Protocol Performance
Kyoto Protocol
Assigned Amount
(% of 1990)
Estimate 2010
(%)
Kyoto Protocol
Assigned Amount
(% of 1990)
Estimate 2010
(%)
Australia
8
7
Latvia
-8
-48.6
Austria
-13
-1.2
Liechtenstein
-8
4
Belgium
-7.5
1.9
Lithuania
-8
-30.4
Bulgaria
-8
-40.4
Netherlands
-6
-2.2
Canada
-6
38.2
New Zealand
0
15
Croatia
-5
-11.8
Norway
1
23.3
Czech Republic
-8
-26.7
Poland
-6
-26.1
Denmark
-8
-2.2
Portugal
27
42.7
Estonia
-8
-56
Romania
-8
-30.8
EU
-8
-6.8
Russia
0
-21.3
Finland
0
-2.5
Slovakia
-8
-24.7
France
0
0.2
Slovenia
-8
-1.4
Germany
-21
-22.5
Spain
15
27
Greece
25
27.5
Sweden
4
0.5
Hungary
-6
-28.7
Switzerland
-8
-3.2
Iceland
10
37.7
Turkey
Ireland
13
22.8
Ukraine
-6.5
3.7
-6
3.6
Italy
Japan
98
0
-47.9
United Kingdom
-12.5
-19.4
United States
-7
26.4
AUSTRALIAN IN DUSTRY GREENHOUSE NETWORK
3
Who Needs To Contribute?
AUSTRALIAN IN DUSTRY GREENHOUSE NETWORK
4
Who Can Afford to Contribute?
AUSTRALIAN IN DUSTRY GREENHOUSE NETWORK
5
Government’s Negotiating Position
“… reduce Australia’s emissions by 25 per cent on 2000
levels by 2020 if the world agrees to an ambitious global
deal capable of stabilising levels of greenhouse gases in
the atmosphere at 450 ppm CO2-e or lower…and… to
unconditionally reduce Australia’s emissions by 5 per cent
on 2000 levels by 2020, and to reduce emissions by up to
15 per cent by 2020 if there is a global agreement which
falls short of securing atmospheric stabilisation at 450 ppm
CO2-e, and under which major developing economies
commit to substantially restrain emissions and advanced
economies take on commitments comparable to
Australia’s.”
Joint submission to the UNFCCC by Australia, Belarus, Canada, and the European Community, May 2009
AUSTRALIAN IN DUSTRY GREENHOUSE NETWORK
6
“Reduce Australia’s Emissions”


It is not an emissions ‘target’
It is a share, or national allocation, of
international emission rights
AUSTRALIAN IN DUSTRY GREENHOUSE NETWORK
7
Australia’s Emissions -5% By 2020
AUSTRALIAN IN DUSTRY GREENHOUSE NETWORK
8
Comparable Effort
“Mitigation will be best enhanced by countries
making a comparable effort to others at a similar
stage of development, taking into account differing
national circumstances. Comparable effort would
be represented by the entire portfolio of a country’s
effort, including but not limited to economy wide
emission reduction targets for advanced
economies.”
Australia’s Low Pollution Future: Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, Dec. 2008
AUSTRALIAN IN DUSTRY GREENHOUSE NETWORK
9
Indicators of Comparable Effort


Access Economics report
 Reference to base year
 Per capita
 Business as usual
 Economic or welfare impact – GNP
Australia, USA, EU, Canada
AUSTRALIAN IN DUSTRY GREENHOUSE NETWORK
10
Country Commitments
AUSTRALIAN IN DUSTRY GREENHOUSE NETWORK
11
Baseline Year: Indicator 1
AUSTRALIAN IN DUSTRY GREENHOUSE NETWORK
12
Per Capita Indicator 2: -20% Production
Based
AUSTRALIAN IN DUSTRY GREENHOUSE NETWORK
13
Production versus Consumption
AUSTRALIAN IN DUSTRY GREENHOUSE NETWORK
14
UK Emissions
AUSTRALIAN IN DUSTRY GREENHOUSE NETWORK
15
BAU Indicator 3: -20% Reduction
AUSTRALIAN IN DUSTRY GREENHOUSE NETWORK
16
Why is EU’s -20% So Little?
Kyoto Protocol
Assigned Amount
(% of 1990)
Estimate 2010
(%)
Kyoto Protocol
Assigned Amount
(% of 1990)
Estimate 2010
(%)
Australia
8
7
Latvia
-8
-48.6
Austria
-13
-1.2
Liechtenstein
-8
4
Belgium
-7.5
1.9
Lithuania
-8
-30.4
Bulgaria
-8
-40.4
Netherlands
-6
-2.2
Canada
-6
38.2
New Zealand
0
15
Croatia
-5
-11.8
Norway
1
23.3
Czech Republic
-8
-26.7
Poland
-6
-26.1
Denmark
-8
-2.2
Portugal
27
42.7
Estonia
-8
-56
Romania
-8
-30.8
EU
-8
-6.8
Russia
0
-21.3
Finland
0
-2.5
Slovakia
-8
-24.7
France
0
0.2
Slovenia
-8
-1.4
Germany
-21
-22.5
Spain
15
27
Greece
25
27.5
Sweden
4
0.5
Hungary
-6
-28.7
Switzerland
-8
-3.2
Iceland
10
37.7
Turkey
Ireland
13
22.8
Ukraine
-6.5
3.7
-6
3.6
Italy
Japan
98
0
-47.9
United Kingdom
-12.5
-19.4
United States
-7
26.4
AUSTRALIAN IN DUSTRY GREENHOUSE NETWORK
17
GNP Indicator 4: Allocation Budgets
The year 2020 allocation is interesting
but
The real test of ‘comparable effort’ is the
allocation budget from 2013 to 2020 (or
2017)
AUSTRALIAN IN DUSTRY GREENHOUSE NETWORK
18
Country BAU Emissions
AUSTRALIAN IN DUSTRY GREENHOUSE NETWORK
19
Government’s Illustrative Allocation
AUSTRALIAN IN DUSTRY GREENHOUSE NETWORK
20
Comparative GNP Impact
AUSTRALIAN IN DUSTRY GREENHOUSE NETWORK
21
Comparative Employment Impact
AUSTRALIAN IN DUSTRY GREENHOUSE NETWORK
22
Alternative Allocation Budget For
Australia
AUSTRALIAN IN DUSTRY GREENHOUSE NETWORK
23
Graduated v Straight-line GNP
AUSTRALIAN IN DUSTRY GREENHOUSE NETWORK
24
Comparative GNP Effects - 2015
AUSTRALIAN IN DUSTRY GREENHOUSE NETWORK
25
Comparative Employment Effects 2015
AUSTRALIAN IN DUSTRY GREENHOUSE NETWORK
26
References





AIGN http://www.aign.net.au/
Department of Climate Change
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/international/i
ndex.html
http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Docu
ment=EV02033_7331_FRP.pdf
UNFCCC
http://unfccc.int/ghg_data/items/3800.php
World Resources Institute www.wri.org
AUSTRALIAN IN DUSTRY GREENHOUSE NETWORK
27