´óÏó´«Ã½

Do you protect the planet or safeguard your prosperity? That is how the climate change debate in Australia has increasingly been framed, as the Rudd government has grappled with its plans for an emissions trading system designed to cut emissions whilst at the same time protecting Australia's status as a mining and energy powerhouse.

Then there are the overlapping and complicated issues of how to get the plan through parliament when you do not have a majority in the upper house, the Senate.

And how to appease green-friendly governments in Europe who have long viewed Australia as something of a "greenhouse ghetto": the country with the highest per capita emissions in the developed world, and a massive exporter of pollution, mainly through thermal coal, the country's number one export commodity (it accounts for around 10-20% of export income).

A "diabolical" policy dilemma is how the Rudd government's climate change advisor, Ross Garnault, memorably described it - and that was before the global economic downturn, and the end of the Australian resources boom.

Last week, I was in Canberra meeting the head of the Minerals Council of Australia, Mitch Hooke, who reckoned that the carbon emissions trading scheme would cost 30,000 jobs in the mining sector alone. Similar concerns were echoed by other big business lobby groups.

Seemingly, the prime minister has listened, and announced that the emissions trading scheme will be delayed for a year.

"The worst global recession since the Great Depression means we must adapt our climate change measures, but not abandon them," said Mr Rudd.

But this will be seen by many as a victory for the mining and minerals sector, and a reminder, if any were needed, of their political clout. (As a historical aside, it is worth remembering that Australia's first industrial policy was drafted by an executive of BHP, the forerunner of BHP Billiton.)

As a sop to environmental groups - namely the Australian Greens, whose support he needs to get the measure through the Senate - Kevin Rudd has said he plans to adopt more ambitious emissions cuts.

Originally, he set a target of 5-15% by 2020, which, by European standards, is on the lower end of the scale. Now, he proposes to aim for deeper cuts of 25% over the next decade, depending on the outcome of the all-important UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December, which will thrash out a post-Kyoto global deal.

But the Greens have already slammed the proposals, saying they are worse than the Rudd government's original scheme. Mitch Hooke at the Minerals Council is also unhappy saying, in effect, that it offers only a stay of execution.

The Liberal Party, meanwhile, is calling this a "humiliating backdown". The leader of the opposition, Malcolm Turnbull, noted: "Only a few months ago Mr Rudd said that any delay in the start of an emissions trading scheme would be reckless and irresponsible both for the economy and the environment."

Kevin Rudd came to power promising to put Australia in the forefront of green diplomacy. His first act as prime minister was to ratify the Kyoto Protocol - a deal, first lauded and then lambasted by the then prime minister John Howard, which actually allowed Australia to increase its emissions, something that is often forgotten.

Though famously sceptical on the subject of climate change, John Howard planned to introduce an emissions trading scheme by 2012. Kevin Rudd's proposals will come into effect in 2011, if he manages to get the legislation through parliament.

So has Kevin Rudd brought more continuity to his approach to global warming than change? Has he protected the Australian economy at the cost of the global environment?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?