What Are The Driving Forces Of Australiaâ€™s Approach To International Action On Climate Change?

Global Actions

What Are The Driving Forces Of Australia’s Approach To International Action On Climate Change?

Nowadays, there has been debate regarding climate change. It is said that,almost every region of the world is affected or will be affected by the issue of climate whichdisturbs the economies of nations, and the lives of the people internationally (Barry, Osborne and Rose 2013: 14).scientists have claims that people has already started to experience the impact of changes in the climate. which includes: changes in the weather pattern, disturbance in the levels of the sea and more such extreme conditions are present in the environment as well(Shienfeld and Pandis 2016: 26). The greenhouse gases, which are emitted due to the activities of the humans, are said to be the most crucial factor for rapid changes occurring in the atmosphere. Presently, the global communities agreed to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol acknowledging the climate change is the global problem (Colins et al. 2013: 34).After the agreement, the nations desired to reduce the emissions on a global basis within a stipulated time period as well as to avoid the interference of the climate changes with the humans. The emergency to reduce emissions within a very short span of time was a great challenge for many countries including Australia(Jabareen 2013: 220).Therefore, this essay focuses on the approach of Australia towards climate change proposed by the United Nations and the Kyoto Protocol. This essay is divided into four parts. The first part discusses the global actions and the Kyoto protocol. The second part highlight of key theories (Realism, Liberalism and Constructivism) of foreign policies in dealing with issues out their perimeter. The last part discusses Australia approach toward climate change following by a conclusion.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is an international treaty on the preservation and conservation of the environment that was adopted on 9^th of May in 1992. The UNFCCC was opened for signature at United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, popularly known as the Earth Summit(Brunnée and Streck 2013: 589). The convention states that the nations should take serious actions to protect the climate and the first ones to take the measures would be the first world or the developed counties of the world. The Frame Work Convention also specifies the aim of the developed countries and states that the countries should be able to stabilize the emissions of the greenhouse gases by the year 2000 to the level that was recorded in the year 1990(Morgan and Waskow 2014: 17). Therefore, the first ambition step toward this vision was Kyoto Protocol summit held in Japan.

The Kyoto Protocol

The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement which is linked to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change which executes and announces to reduce the emissions. This approach was adopted in the Kyoto summit on 11^th of December, 1997 and entered into force on 16^th February, 2005 (Bartel, McFarland and Hearfield 2014:45). The detailed reports on the rules and regulations for the implementation of the Protocol were adopted in year 2001 at COP7 in Marrakesh, Morocco and are referred as the “Marrakesh Accords”(Iwata and Okada 2014: 325). The first commitment period of the Protocol resulted from 2008 to 2012. The protocol recognized that the first world or the developed nations are responsible for the high amount of emissions of the greenhouse gasesthat are recorded. The presence of such high amount of emissions in the atmosphere is due to the result that these countries are having more than 150 years of continuous industrial activity. The Protocol has placed a higher burden and ordered for the reduction of the emissions of the developed nations and have placed them under the principle of “common but differentiated their responsibilities”(Neilsen et al. 2015: 44). However, there has been controversial paradigm regarding countries approach in climate change initiatives. Thus, theories of foreign policy help perhaps make us understand this phenomenon.

Theories of foreign policy help explain the interests of states and why states approach global issues differently on the international level. Realism as a theoryof International Relations put emphasis on the role of the state, the national interests and the military power of the politics in the world. Realism claim to offer the most accurate explanation of the behaviour of the state and the set of the policies to mitigate the constitutional elements of the international affairs. The realist assume that the states are unitary in nature, act within a geographical boundary and the rule of the states without any kind of authority and the sovereign states are not international institutions but are the main actors of the international affairs.

Most critics criticize this theory on the ground of significance prospects of the nation. According to them, the nation acts as the starting point of the analysis and struggles with the change. This theory ignores the logical factors and does not consider the real roles for the non-state actors(Popper 2013: 54).

While another theory of International, Liberalism is of the view that deals with the protection, value, quality of lives and freedom of individuals.The liberals are generally of the belief that a government is the most necessary part of any state that has the capability to protect the individuals from being harmed by the others. They also recognize that the government itself is capable enough to pose a threat to the liberty.

Theories and Foreign Policy

Liberal authors are of the view that society can be based only upon the market values and individualism, which many critics are state it as an illusion. The theory has very contribution to the foreign policy and overstates the policy for cooperation (Barry et al. 2013, 66).

The theory of Constructivism states that how the different core aspects of the international relations is socially constructed and are not determined by the structure or objective analysis. According to this theory, international relations is a social realm which incorporates the use of interaction and the agents and structures are mutually constituted.

The problem with this theory is that,it lacks the consideration of ethics which is the backbone of any decision-making process that bring about changes and improvement in the nation(Brunnée and Streck 2013: 600).

Australia is enlisted as one of the countries with highest emission, most of which comes from coal. According to the reports, forest and agriculture sector accounts for 23% of the total emission (Wong et al. 2013: 52). Here, mention can be made of Kyoto Protocol, which was signed by the Australia in the era of 1998. One of the striking features is the highest emission of greenhouse gases in 1990, which divided the country into three nations. The major drive behind this was land clearing. This alarmed the government, which resulted in issuing warnings towards maintaining the emission levels of 108% (Tan, Ficklin and Yusop 2014: 676). From then onwards, the government improsed restrictions on land clearing for mitigating the emission levels.

Concessions failed to lure Australian Federal government through the means of agreements. They clearly declared that they would not include the developing countries like US. This deprived the US from the support they got from the Kyoto Protocol. This withdrawal reflected the concerns of Australian Prime Minister regarding the strain on the economy, with focus on the employment (Bartel, McFarland and Hearfield 2014: 67). Declaration of the decision by the Federal Government did not stop them from taking initiatives towards reducing the emission levels according to the benchmark (Wise et al. 2014: 325).

Till 2008, the government catered to the reduction of the emission levels. Fir this, policies were introduced for dealing with the climactic change. This was with the consideration of the internationational obligations. The policy of climate change for Australia was established on the “no-regrets” approach with the Federal Government (Fidelman, Leitch and Nelson 2013:805). The policy implemented only those measures that would not bear any cost or benefits other than reducing the greenhouse emissions. In 1996, an Australian bureaucrat announced that it would be more beneficial to evacuate the nearby island nations that are affected by the rose of the sea level than to reduce the emissions caused by the greenhouse gases (Frusher et al. 2013: 602). The decision to adopt the voluntary initiatives, the Government of Australia approached towards the reductions of the emissions and was fully dependent on the spontaneous and the cooperative partnerships that existed between the industry and the authority of the country by taking different actions such as the “Greenhouse Challenge”, “Greenhouse Challenge Plus schemes” and the “Greenhouse Friendly voluntary offsets scheme”(Lawrence, Richards and Lyons 2013: 30).

Australia’s Approach Toward Climate change

For a long time of Australia followed the objectives of the trading the emissions and stated that the country would not impose the costs. However, it was found that the country potentially established a carbon manufacturing scheme. The National Emissions Trading Taskforce (NETT) in 2004 which proposed a national and state based trading system(Mukheibir et al.2013: 271). The coverage of the strategy extended from the stationary energy to the fugitive or wanted emissions. The scheme stated that the license would be taken in the form of property rights along with free allotment of the allowance of the electric generators and Emissions Intensive Trade Exposed (EITEs) industries. The scheme was supported and acknowledged by all the states except the Federal Government of Australia.

Later on, in December 2006, Prime Minister Howard requested for the establishment of a Task Group on Emissions Trading (Frusher et al.2014: 593). The group was asked to consider a proposal for the country and establish a manufacturing system on the workable global emissions in which it would be easier for the country to participate (Galera et al. 2014: 500). The Task Group made certain recommendations so as toconsider the implementation of the domestic emissions trading scheme to allow it to be linked with the other overseas trading systems in the future. The liabilities on the reduction of emissions were imposed on the large-scale usage of the fossil fuels and its distributers in the country (Grafton et al. 2013: 315). The system was to be operationalby the end of 2011 and the key features and the rule s and regulations was to be delivered by the middle of 2008, but the system was ceased due to the change in the government of the country(Fidelman, Leitch and Nelson 2013: 800).

Rapid changes in the climate of the country was the major issue of the 2007 elections of the country as the people of the Australian community began to raise different questions on the absence of the actions that were made to solve the impacts of the climate change. The Howard Government emphasized on the need for regulating the climactic changes. The result of this was the formation of National Greenhouse Gas Emissions, which would work with the future national radiations manufacturing system that was proposed to be set up earlier (Nachmany et al.2014: 35). The government failed to control the emissions resulted from the greenhouse gasses and even failed to provide the report of the emissions.

In 2007, the Rudd Government was elected and the government promised to agree to the terms of the Kyoto Protocol. The government promised to address the climatic changes in the country and introduced a system of charging a certain amount of the penalty on the carbon and greenhouse radiations (Gurran, Norman and Hamin 2013: 105). The government concluded that the reduction rate of the country was much higher as compared to the other first world nations. This was so because the country had a large share of the emissions and large industries on which most of its citizens depends(Galera et al. 2014: 495). The government gave significant emphasis on the trading system that was proposed by the Federal Government, followed by the acceptance to the term and making an agreement with the Kyoto Protocol by the late of 2007. It was expected that the country would be having a significant shift in the policies and laws related to the climatic change.

Along with this, policies related to charge penalty on the carbon and the greenhouse emissions were also implemented. Certain initiatives were aimed to adopt the renewable energy by purchasing wholesale power (Iwata and Okada 2014: 330).

Thus, it can be said that Australia approach toward climate change is complex making it difficult to fully understand their stance especially from theoretical perspective. At some point, it seems to be they are corporative at the same time not cooperating. For example, it mentions if the sea level is rising. It prefer to evacuate island countries rather than reducing its emissions. However, in view of the above, it can be said that, Australia approach toward climate change is morealign with the realism view, which prioritise states interest first. Although Australia take some liberal approach by accepting some of terms and conditions from various climate change summit.

Conclusion

It can be said that Australia approach toward climate change seems positive in relative term but at the same time seem vague for the future. As the country is more concern about it economy status.However, there is no single theory that can describe and cover the discipline of foreign policies in international relations precisely. All the theories contribute to the formation of foreign policies and explanations that helps in the capturing the approaches of Australian toward climate change. Australia has tried to reduce it emissions from the greenhouse gases and the use of carbons as stated in the Kyoto Protocol but not on a fast pace.Therefore, after analysing the response of the Australian’s government towards the climate change, one can say, their approach toward climate is more realist and less liberal in view of the above discussion. And still, the country has not been able to control the emissions and is still a threat in the near future.

References

Barry, A., Osborne, T. and Rose, N., 2013. Foucault and Political Reason: liberalism, neo-liberalism and the rationalities of government. Routledge.

Bartel, R., McFarland, P. and Hearfield, C., 2014. Taking a de-binarisedenvirosocial approach to reconciling the environment vs economy debate: lessons from climate change litigation for planning in NSW, Australia. Town Planning Review, 85(1), pp.67-96.

Brunnée, J. and Streck, C., 2013. The UNFCCC as a negotiation forum: towards common but more differentiated responsibilities. Climate Policy, 13(5), pp.589-607.

Collins, M., Knutti, R., Arblaster, J., Dufresne, J.L., Fichefet, T., Friedlingstein, P., Gao, X., Gutowski, W.J., Johns, T., Krinner, G. and Shongwe, M., 2013. Long-term climate change: projections, commitments and irreversibility.

Fidelman, P.I., Leitch, A.M. and Nelson, D.R., 2013. Unpacking multilevel adaptation to climate change in the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Global Environmental Change, 23(4), pp.800-812.

Frusher, S.D., Hobday, A.J., Jennings, S.M., Creighton, C., D’Silva, D., Haward, M., Holbrook, N.J., Nursey-Bray, M., Pecl, G.T. and van Putten, E.I., 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.

Galera, A.N., de los Ríos Berjillos, A., Lozano, M.R. and Valencia, P.T., 2014. Transparency of sustainability information in local governments: English-speaking and Nordic cross-country analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 64, pp.495-504.

Grafton, R.Q., Pittock, J., Davis, R., Williams, J., Fu, G., Warburton, M., Udall, B., McKenzie, R., Yu, X., Che, N. and Connell, D., 2013. Global insights into water resources, climate change and governance. Nature Climate Change, 3(4), p.315.

Gurran, N., Norman, B. and Hamin, E., 2013. Climate change adaptation in coastal Australia: an audit of planning practice. Ocean & Coastal Management, 86, pp.100-109.

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

Jabareen, Y., 2013. Planning the resilient city: Concepts and strategies for coping with climate change and environmental risk. Cities, 31, pp.220-229.

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

Morgan, J. and Waskow, D., 2014. A new look at climate equity in the UNFCCC. Climate Policy, 14(1), pp.17-22.

Mukheibir, P., Kuruppu, N., Gero, A. and Herriman, J., 2013. Overcoming cross-scale challenges to climate change adaptation for local government: a focus on Australia. Climatic change, 121(2), pp.271-283.

Nachmany, M., Fankhauser, S., Townshend, T., Collins, M., Landesman, T., Matthews, A., Pavese, C., Rietig, K., Schleifer, P. and Setzer, J., 2014. The GLOBE climate legislation study: a review of climate change legislation in 66 countries.

Nielsen, O.K., Plejdrup, M.S., Winther, M., Nielsen, M., Gyldenkærne, S., Mikkelsen, M.H., Albrektsen, R., Thomsen, M., Hjelgaard, K., Fauser, P. and Bruun, H.G., 2015. Denmark’s National Inventory Report 2015: Emission Inventories1990-2013–Submitted under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol.

Popper, K., 2013. Realism and the aim of science: From the postscript to the logic of scientific discovery. Routledge.

Seinfeld, J.H. and Pandis, S.N., 2016. Atmospheric chemistry and physics: from air pollution to climate change. John Wiley & Sons.

Tan, M.L., Ficklin, D.L. and Yusop, Z., 2014. Impacts and uncertainties of climate change on streamflow of the Johor River Basin, Malaysia using a CMIP5 General Circulation Model ensemble. Journal of Water and Climate Change, 5(4), pp.676-695.

Wise, R.M., Fazey, I., Smith, M.S., Park, S.E., Eakin, H.C., Van Garderen, E.A. and Campbell, B., 2014. Reconceptualising adaptation to climate change as part of pathways of change and response. Global Environmental Change, 28, pp.325-336.

Wong, E., Jiang, M., Klint, L., DeLacy, T., Harrison, D. and Dominey-Howes, D., 2013. Policy environment for the tourism sector’s adaptation to climate change in the South Pacific–The case of Samoa. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 18(1-2), pp.52-71.