Response To Climate Change: Inefficiencies In Australia’s International Response

The Global Fight against Climate Change

Response to Climate Change

Climate change refers to the long-term alterations in the global weather conditions caused by the increment in the atmospheric temperatures.  Climate change has become a global phenomenon that affects all parts of the world. Since the mid 20^th century, the global community has been experiencing a rapid change in climatic conditions. Research has revealed that climate change is caused by the variations in solar radiation, volcanic eruptions, and plate tectonics. Nonetheless, climate change is attributed to anthropological activities that result into the emission of green gases into the atmosphere. Climate change is a very big problem that affects human beings, animals, plants, ecosystem, and biodiversity in totality. It has led to the outbreak of diseases, floods, drought, conflicts, hunger, and death.  The effects of climate change have been felt in all countries across the globe including Australia. Australia has been greatly hit by climate change. However, it has also been enjoined in the list of the developed countries that contribute to the emission of green gas into the atmosphere. Therefore, it should be actively involved in international response to climate change, an initiative that has been overlooked by the Australian governments. The paper presents an in-depth and critical analysis of the inefficiencies in Australia’s international response to climate change.

The fight against climate change should be jointly done by all the countries across the world. It should be the responsibility of all the governments including Australia’s to be actively involved in the fight against climate change (Rosen 2015). The situation can be worse in the near future if no measures are taken to address the challenge of green gas emission. The emission of green gases into the atmosphere is mainly done by human beings through industrial activities such as manufacturing and the use of fossil fuels like coal (Amelung & Nicholls 2014). The release of green gases into the environment is mainly done by the developed countries that use fossil fuel in their manufacturing process.  Top in the list of greatest greenhouse emitters are China, USA, India, Russia, Brazil, Japan, Indonesia, Germany, Korea, Canada, Iran, and Australia whose global share of green gas emission is illustrated herein: 

 In order to tame the emission of green gases, the global community has been coming together, to individually and collectively do something about it. The war against climate change has been ongoing for many decades. The first notable step made in the fight against climate change was in 1992 when the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) came into being. This was followed by the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in1997. Kyoto Protocol was a noble initiative because it acknowledged climate change as a global menace caused by the emission of CO2. The protocol set a goal of eradicating climate change by reducing green gas emissions to acceptable levels. Hence, it put a heavy burden on individual countries to be responsible in their green gas emission tendencies (Gollier & Tirole 2015). To help in minimizing the emission of green gases into the environment, the treaty came up with the policy of common, but differentiated responsibility. The treaty imposed a heavy burden on the developed countries to be responsible for the green gases they have been emitting into the environment. The argument is that the effects are seriously felt even by the underdeveloped nations which least contribute to climate change, but are greatly affected by it.

Failure of Australia to Play an Adequate Role in the International Response to Climate Change

According to the treaty, the differentiated policy would be enforced by each and every country. Here, each and every country was expected to come up with policies to help in controlling the emission of green gas into the environment. It was decided that the diversities in the social, economic, and political situations of each country would be used to decide the implementation period and strategies to be adopted. A proper implementation of the policies would help in domestic fight against climate change in the countries. However, to help in eradicating climate change in the more vulnerable developing countries, the treaty stipulated that all the developed countries would engage in a collective implementation and be active contributors to the carbon emission trading fund. Carbon emission trading is money that is proportionately contributed by the developed countries to pay for the amount of carbon dioxide released into the environment (Abbott, Green & Keohane 2016). It is used by the developing countries to mitigate climate change and improve the quality of life in the vulnerable third world countries.    

Failure of Australia to Play an Adequate Role in the International Response to Climate Change

As a member of the Kyoto Protocol, Australia acknowledges two things:

1) Climate change is a reality and 2) climate change is mainly caused by the anthropological release of green gases into the atmosphere. Its membership to the Kyoto Protocol has come with a heavy burden of responsibilities. First, just like any other greatest contributor to green gas emission, the government of Australia is obligated to come up with domestic policies to eliminate green gas emission within its borders. Besides, the government of Australia should join other countries and become an active player in the global war against climate change (Lawrence, Richards & Lyons 2014). Meaning, among its contributions, the government should be ready to generously contribute its share of the Carbon Emission Trading. In order to fulfill these obligations, the government of Australia set certain goals to accomplish.

The government of Australia set a target of minimizing the rate of green gas emission by 5% below 2,000 levels by the year 2020. Besides, the government has come up with a goal of reducing the rate of green gas emission by 26% to 28% below 2005 by the year 2030.  All these were set to be accomplished by taking radical measures such as technological innovations, use of green energy like solar and wind. The provision of green energy for instance, would be relied upon to help in providing an alternative source of energy that is safe and environmental-friendly because it does not cause pollution to the environment. Also, advancements in technology would bring new ideas that would be applied to help in minimizing the emission of green gases into the environment. Although the government of Australia has pledged its seriousness in the fight against climate change, it has failed to actualize the goals. So far, nothing much has been done to implement the brilliant goals (Leonard, Parsons, Olawsky & Kofod 2013). The subsequent government regimes have not been committed towards accomplishing any of the goals. Meaning, both the pre and post 2020 goals will not e achieved.

According to the research conducted by the German Media Corporation Bertelsmann-owned Bertelsmann Foundation, Australia is worse-off in its international response to climate change. According to the report, Australia ranks at number 30 in combating climate change and 33 in green gas emission. In terms of consumption, the report revealed that the country has a consumption rate of domestic materials at 47 tons per person (Aichele & Felbermayr 2013). This is a justification of the fact that Australia still has a high rate of green gas emission. The commitments made have not been put into practice because the same problem of green gas emission still persists.  The same report established that the country has a high rate of carbon dioxide emission because a single Australian generates three times as much carbon dioxide than the people in other industrialized countries.  The country still relies on and manufactures fossil fuels. In fact, it has failed to eradicate the use of fossil fuels because it still produces and supplies fossil fuels to many people (Chan, et al 2015). Meaning, the country has not fully-embraced the use of renewable energy that was to be instrumental in helping in reducing the rate of emission of green gases into the environment.

The country has not been executing its mandate of contributing its proportionate share of the carbon emission trading fund.  When it signed to be a member of the Kyoto Protocol, the government of Australia had made a commitment be part of a solution to global climate change. To do so, the government would, among other measures, contribute towards the carbon dioxide emission fund. Based on its share of green gas emission, the government was obligated to contribute its fair share (Cotana, et al. 2014). Although Australia made a commitment to abide by that, it has failed to do so. Its share of the emission fund has not been wholesomely contributed. This has not been good because it has proved its irresponsibility towards the eradication of climate change in the society. Australia has a mandate to contribute to the kitty because it is one of the industrialized nations that significantly contribute towards climate change (Vardoulakis, Dear, Hajat, Heaviside, Eggen & McMichael 2014). Failing to fulfill the mandate of contributing to the carbon trading fund shows that the country is not willing to mitigate climate change especially in the developing nations that need financial and technological support.

The government has failed to achieve the goal it had set for the $2.55 billion Emission Reduction Fund (ERF) whose main role would be to help in the reduction of green gas emission in the country. ERF is a total failure because it was off-target. Australia will not manage to achieve its carbon dioxide emission by 2020 because the funds are not adequate. The fact that the cost of a tone of carbon dioxide stands at AUD 14 implies that the funds will not manage to purchase more than 150 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions. It therefore translates that the money will only manage to purchase up to 54 million tons of carbon dioxide emission by 2020, a paltry 23% of the target (Stadelmann, Persson, Ratajczak-Juszko & Michaelowa 2014). The fund was destined to fail because the government is not committed about its success. The policy was poorly framed because it did not provide adequate budget as well as put in place a well outlined time frame upon which the entire project would be completed.

Australia has failed to live up to its post-2020 green gas emission reduction plans. Initially, the government has laid out a paper in which it categorically stated that it would have long-term plans to reduce green gas emission beyond the year 2020. In ‘National Energy Productivity Plan,’ the government set a clear goal on its renewable energy plans. It explained that it would look forward to supporting the production and usage of renewable energies in the country. A proper implementation of this strategy would help in reducing the rate of green gas emission. However, this goal will not be achieved as anticipated. Apart from lacking a clear policy-guideline, the initiative is destined for failure because it is not fully-supported by the government. For example, in terms of budget, the green energy initiative is underfunded. In fact, its budget was greatly interfered with when the government decided to cut the 41,000 gigawatt budgets to 33,000 gigawatt hours (Oberthür 2016). This is a clear proof that there is no political goodwill in the plan.

The government of Australia has not stopped the usage of non-renewable energy sources. The coal sector is still a force to reckon with in the country. There are industries that manufacture, use and supply carbon-emitting gases. Failure by the government to stop this practice clearly demonstrates that the government has failed in international response to climate change. According to the agreements of the Kyoto Protocol, each of the 192 member states has individual and collective responsibility to minimize the emission of green gases both within and out of their respective jurisdictions (Kander, Jiborn, Moran & Wiedmann 2015). The government of Australia has however failed to execute this mandate because it has totally failed to tame the use of fossil fuel. It still remains a popular source of energy in the country. The plans made towards the use of green energy have not been actualized. In fact, Australia still imports fossil fuel and its products to other countries across the world. All these show that the government of Australia has not been effective in its global response to climate change.  When Prime Minister Abott said, “Coal is good for humanity, coal is good for prosperity, coal is an essential part of our economic future, here in Australia, and right around the world,” he was proving to the Australians and the global community that he would not do much to minimize climate change (Frusher, et al 2014). It shows that Australians will continue producing coal even if it is a non-renewable energy that would increase the amount of green gas emission.  

The role of Australia in the eradication of climate change should not be taken for granted. Australia being an industrialized nation has a bigger share in the green gas emission. Therefore, to reduce the rate of emission of green gases, the government of Australia should be actively involved. It can do so by taking a number of measures such contributing to the carbon trade fund, and adopting appropriate green gas policies (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2014). The shift from conventional non-renewable to renewable energy sources can be a sure way of reducing the rate of green gas emission in the environment. In its capacity as a party to the Kyoto Protocol, the government of Australia is supposed to come up with stringent measures to regulate the production and usage of fossil fuels. At the same time, it has a responsibility to encourage and empower the Australians to use green energy (Fiddes & Timbal 2017). However, these efforts have failed because of lack of political good will from the country’s top leadership.   

The failure of Australia to adequately respond to climate change has been fueled by its leadership. During his reign as Prime Minster, Antony Abott became a big obstacle in the country’s international response to climate change. He dismantled the fight against climate change because after the assumption of office in 2013, the Prime Minister took a number of measures that were deliberately aimed at thwarting the climate change efforts. The first surprise pulled by Prime Minister Abott is that he quickly trashed the carbon emission fund by abolishing Australia’s share contribution. This was a bad decision that was so disastrous in the fight against climate change. It made the country to act irresponsibly and decide not to contribute money to the carbon emission trade kitty (Abott 2014). The decision would not only affect Australia, but the global community at large. It is a move that set a bad precedence to other industrialized countries that had been obligated to be part of the carbon trading fund contributors.  

The Abott Administration took a bold step of shutting down the Climate Commission. Climate Commission was an independent commission that had been instituted by the government to help in carrying a research on the causes, effects, magnitude, and the solutions to climate change that had been considered as an issue of concern both within and out of Australia (Delreux 2014). The shutting down of this commission was so disastrous because it negatively impacted on the war against climate change. It made it extremely challenging for the government to get reliable information that would be used to understand much about climate change. It is only the commission that had experts who would use their skills to inform the government and the public on climate change-related matters. However, the government felt that it was now to time to cut funding for climate research because it was not a priority area to consider (Stocker 2014). It was a real blow to the struggle because the Climate Commission would play a significant role in determining the future of climate change both within and out of Australia.  

The fight against climate change lost direction in 2013 when Prime Minister Abott completely denied climate change and considered it a complete heist. It is this same position that would later be held by President Donald Trump who is the current US president. To prove his stance, the Prime Minister asserted, “The climate change argument is absolute crap, however the politics are tough for us because 80 per cent of people believe climate change is a real and present danger” (Cotana, et al. 2014). After making such utterances, the Prime Minister went ahead to repeal the existing carbon tax on July 17, 2014. The abolition of the carbon tax was a blow to the fight against climate change. After its introduction in 2011 by the preceding Gillard Regime, the tax successfully helped in reducing the country’s coal production and green gas emission by 11%. Similar moves can be compared to the delay in the implementation of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) that took effect immediately it was announced by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd on April 27, 2010 (Lawrence, Richards & Lyons 2013).  

Abott Administration decided to cut down climate-related funds. Here, the first casualty was the country’s funding to the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP). Instead of supporting it like his predecessors, the Abott Administration decided to make drastic cuts on the funds. This was a paralysis in the international response to climate change because it would portray Australia as an uncooperative partner. Worse still, the government went ahead to reduce the nation’s allocated 20% Renewable Energy Target (RET). It was also a bad move because it would greatly interfere with the production of renewable energy in the country. The previous regimes had agreed to set aside enough resources to use in subsidizing manufacturers to generate enough renewable energy sources like wind and solar (Böhringer 2014). Its production would help in replacing the conventional fossil fuels that have been causing a lot of green gas emission. After doing all these cuts, the government felt that it was still necessary to cause further humiliations to the fight against climate change. Just like his predecessor, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull also decided to halt the operations of the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility and made further cuts on Clean Technology Research Program, International Climate Finance, and climate science funds (Iwata & Okada 2014). These steps have demonstrated the unwillingness of Australia to fight climate change because they take the country to the 1990s.     

Conclusion

Climate change is a reality. It is a serious problem that has greatly impacted on the global community. The adverse changes in weather conditions have made life challenging to the human beings, animals and plants as well. It has directly resulted into hunger, drought, floods, conflicts, diseases, destruction of properties, and loss of many lives. These are the problems that Australia has been facing. Although the global community had made a commitment to collectively fight climate change, the war is yet to be won because currently, the rate of green gas emission is higher than it was at the time of the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol. Just like its fellow developed nations, Australia has not effectively contributed to the war against climate change. Despite coming up with brilliant goals, the government has not achieved much. The weaknesses of the Australian government have been witnessed in the way it has been treating the adoption of green energy.

The government of Australia has been at the forefront of opposing the limits imposed on coal financing. Australia is reluctant to support the imitation because it is not interested in fighting climate change rather than advancing its interests in coal production. To prove its interests in coal production, the government has decided to lobby for foreign financial aid to support the cal sector. Since 2007, the government has received a total of $4 billion from foreign countries. At the same time, it has been allocating $1.4 billion to help in subsidizing coal energy production. These are decisions that were deliberately made to thwart the international climate change efforts. Just like any other country, Australia is aware that it is one of the greatest contributors to climate change. Therefore, to be part of the solution, it needs to adopt and enforce drastic climate change measures to help in addressing the issues of fossil fuel and renewable energy. However, failure by the Abott and Malcolm administrations to do so clearly indicates that the country is not interested in climate change.

References

Abbott, K.W., 2014. Strengthening the transnational regime complex for climate change. Transnational Environmental Law, 3(01), pp.57-88.

Abbott, K.W., Green, J.F. & Keohane, R.O., 2016. Organizational ecology and institutional change in global governance. International Organization, 70(02), pp.247-277.

Aichele, R. Felbermayr, G., 2013. The effect of the kyoto protocol on carbon emissions. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 32(4), pp.731-757.

Amelung, B. & Nicholls, S., 2014. Implications of climate change for tourism in Australia. Tourism Management, 41, pp.228-244.

Böhringer, C., 2014. Two decades of European climate policy: A critical appraisal. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 8(1), pp.1-17.

Chan, S., et al., 2015. Reinvigorating international climate policy: A comprehensive framework for effective nonstate action. Global Policy, 6(4), pp.466-473.

Cotana, F., et al., 2014. Albedo control as an effective strategy to tackle Global Warming: A case study. Applied Energy, 130, pp.641-647.

Delreux, T., 2014. EU actorness, cohesiveness and effectiveness in environmental affairs. Journal of European Public Policy, 21(7), pp.1017-1032.

Fiddes, S. & Timbal, B., 2017. Future impacts of climate change on streamflows across Victoria, Australia: making use of statistical downscaling. Climate Research, 71(3), pp.219-236.

Frusher, S.D., et al., 2014. The short history of research in a marine climate change hotspot: from anecdote to adaptation in south-east Australia. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 24(2), pp.593-611.

Gollier, C. & Tirole, J., 2015. Negotiating effective institutions against climate change. Economics of Energy & Environmental Policy, 4(2), pp.5-28.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2014. Climate Change 2014–Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability: Regional Aspects. Cambridge University Press.

Iwata, H. & Okada, K., 2014. Greenhouse gas emissions and the role of the Kyoto Protocol. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, 16(4), pp.325-342.

Kander, A., Jiborn, M., Moran, D.D. & Wiedmann, T.O., 2015. National greenhouse-gas accounting for effective climate policy on international trade. Nature Climate Change, 5(5), pp.431-435.

Lawrence, G., Richards, C. & Lyons, K., 2013. Food security in Australia in an era of neoliberalism, productivism and climate change. Journal of Rural Studies, 29, pp.30-39.

Lawrence, G., Richards, C. & Lyons, K., 2014. Food security in Australia in an era of neoliberalism, productivism and climate change. Journal of Rural Studies, 29, pp.30-39.

Leonard, S., Parsons, M., Olawsky, K. & Kofod, F., 2013. The role of culture and traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation: Insights from East Kimberley, Australia. Global Environmental Change, 23(3), pp.623-632.

Oberthür, S., 2016. Compliance under the Evolving Climate Change Regime. In The Oxford Handbook of International Climate Change Law (p. 120). Oxford University Press.

Rosen, A.M., 2015. The wrong solution at the right time: The failure of the kyoto protocol on climate change. Politics & Policy, 43(1), pp.30-58.

Stadelmann, M., Persson, Å., Ratajczak-Juszko, I. & Michaelowa, A., 2014. Equity and cost-effectiveness of multilateral adaptation finance: are they friends or foes?. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 14(2), pp.101-120.

Stocker, T. ed., 2014. Climate change 2013: the physical science basis: Working Group I contribution to the Fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.

Vardoulakis, S., Dear, K., Hajat, S., Heaviside, C., Eggen, B. & McMichael, A.J., 2014. Comparative assessment of the effects of climate change on heat-and cold-related mortality in the United Kingdom and Australia. Environmental Health Perspectives (Online), 122(12), p.1285.

Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:

Turnitin Report

Formatting

Title Page

Citation

Outline

Place an Order