Update;
On December 1, 2009 the Liberal Party Room voted to replace me as Leader with Tony Abbott. The final margin was 42 votes to 41. This had the consequence of a major change in the Party's policy on climate change and the agreement to support the ETS with the amendments negotiated by Ian MacFarlane has been reneged on. That is a matter of considerable regret to me and I have spoken about that elsewhere on this site in a more recent FAQ, several Blogs and a Wentworth e-eletter. What follows below relates to the policy position of the Liberal Party during the time I was leader. Mr Abbott is yet to declare what the climate change policy of the Opposition will be but has indicated he will do so by February.
There are varied opinions about the causes and consequences of climate change, but the majority of the scientific evidence supports the argument that our planet is warming, partly due to human-caused emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Prudence requires that we give the planet the benefit of the doubt and work to reduce emissions of these gases.
Dealing with climate change is a complex challenge and involves a number of areas of policy:
Copenhagen Treaty
There has been a lot of recent commentary on a possible treaty which could be concluded at the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit in December.
It is clear that no treaty will be concluded at Copenhagen itself, but the talks may result in a more general political agreement on a global response to climate change, and to further discussions that lead to a treaty at some later date.
The Coalition has sought advice from the Government, which is engaged in the international climate change negotiations, on the status of the document which has been referred to by some commentators in the media as a ‘draft treaty’.
This is a summary of the Government’s advice:
No. The current negotiation texts on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) website are not a 'draft treaty'. While a handful of commentators such as Lord Monckton claim there is a draft treaty to establish 'a transnational government' and impose massive financial transfers from developed to developing countries, this is simply not correct.
In reality there are a number of different negotiating texts. Many individual countries have made proposals, all of which are available on the UNFCCC website. These do not represent agreed text and none could be characterised as a 'draft treaty'.
In May 2009 all the existing proposals were compiled into a single document to facilitate the negotiation of text. In June and August more proposals were added to this document. Nothing was removed. The result was a lengthy, unrefined and necessarily internally inconsistent document that included every proposal, no matter how unlikely to gain consensus.
The 200 page negotiating text has since been split into 12 negotiations around shared vision, mitigation, adaptation, technology, finance, REDD, sectoral approaches, market mechanism, capacity building and so on. The 12 sections will be compiled into one document prior to Copenhagen. As noted, all texts are available on the UNFCCC website
- Is there a plan for ‘World Government’?
No. Some have claimed a reference to 'government' in the text seeks to establish a world government. The reference is part of a Tuvalu proposal for a financial mechanism. The proposal is not agreed. The term 'government' simply refers to a governing group for the proposed financial mechanism. All countries need to be involved and decisions are made by consensus, meaning that any single country can veto any proposal, including that put forward by Tuvalu. In no way can the UNFCCC negotiations be characterised as proposing a world government.
- Is the negotiation text agreed?
No. The negotiating text is a compilation of all proposals by all countries – a ‘wish-list’. Every proposal has been included even if only one country supports it. At Copenhagen, 193 countries must agree to the final text. Any one country can object and block a proposal.
- Is there an agreement to give developing countries money?
No. Countries have universally acknowledged the importance of financial support for climate change action in developing countries. Countries are yet to settle on the scale and governance of any new finance arrangements.
Emissions Trading Scheme
The Opposition has saved tens of thousands of Australian jobs, protected vital industries and secured energy supplies by forcing significant improvements to the Rudd Government’s flawed emissions trading scheme.
The Shadow Cabinet and Joint Party Room have agreed to a package of changes to the CPRS that will provide proper support to key Australian export industries, including coal mining, food processing and natural gas.
The package will protect farmers by permanently excluding agriculture from the scheme, whilst providing them with significant financial and land management opportunities by including agricultural offsets from 2010.
Assistance to electricity generators will be more than doubled, ensuring electricity supply is not threatened.
Furthermore, the Opposition has secured $1.1 billion in direct support to small and medium mining and manufacturing businesses to assist in their transition to the CPRS. An additional $1 billion will be made available to businesses in other, less exposed, sectors.
By including voluntary measures, the environment will benefit from households taking early action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The key changes that the Opposition has secured are outlined here.
Renewable Energy Target (RET)
On August 19 a compromise was reached between the Government and the Coalition on a 20 per cent Renewable Energy Target (RET) for Australia by 2020. The agreement was a victory for common sense and the environment.
The Coalition welcomes the Government’s flexibility in relation to our key concerns, which included:
- A full decoupling of the RET from the proposed ETS.
- Appropriate protection for key energy-intensive trade-exposed industries such as aluminium.
- Protection of existing investment and jobs in the coal mine waste methane power generation industry.
- Scope for industries which may be affected by the RET, such as food processing, to refer their treatment to the Productivity Commission.
- A tightening of regulations relating to RET eligibility for heat pumps.
You can read more about this here.