PRESIDENT'S Column

By Gary Sansom

President

17 Dec 2009 Copenhagen Climate Summit Complicates and Confuses

If you thought Australia’s political debate and media coverage of last month’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) was confusing, then what are you making of the last 10 days coverage of the Copenhagen Climate Conference?
I doubt most farmers are surprised at the arguing and posturing of the politicians and the divergent “scientific” views emanating from Denmark.
Apparently there are some 15,000 people at the summit, so it is an impressive stage on which to state your case, but hardly one where real solutions might be found.
In the weeks and months prior to this UN Conference of Parties (COP) it has been clear that key players like China, the United States of America, India and the European Union do not have strong political support for a post Kyoto Protocol agreement at this stage.
It is a bizarre process that puts so many people together in one spot at one time for one issue, yet we all know that in reality most of the haggling between political leaders has been done in advance and behind closed doors.
I might be wrong, there might be a last minute “break through”, but I’m not holding my breath!
I don't think any of us really know all the drivers for action on climate change – it is complex and there are multiple stakeholders with differing objectives and priorities. Only the naive believe the Copenhagen gathering is exclusively about reducing carbon emissions.
There is no doubt that managing the world’s climate is a global challenge that requires unprecedented international collaboration. However, it is equally clear that there are a number of other agendas. Whether it is trade barriers, equity for developing countries, clean energy subsidies, justification for cost increases, or a campaign motto for a special interest group, the climate change topic is complex, confusing and conflicting.
News this week that some nations are taking a dim view to Australia's call to change the way the Kyoto Protocol deals with agricultural emissions is particularly concerning. Without a revised set of international rules, particularly article 3.4, the opportunity for farmers to play a positive roll in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and sequestrating carbon will be lost.
Just as there are a lot of unrelated side issues influencing this debate, it is equally intriguing to see which issues are not discussed at these forums. For instance, how can any mature and progressive discussion about future low emissions energy supplies be conducted without reference to nuclear power?
Nuclear power is perhaps our cleanest technology and one of the few that could actually supply future demand, but it is sidelined by many perhaps because of the past mistakes or because it is a traditional “no go zone” for the environmental lobbyists.
We have to move forward on the nuclear issue and assess it squarely against other alternative energy sources in the context of ongoing technology change. This is a critical issue for farmers because government demands for new sources is putting stress on the already overburdened natural systems and driving up the cost of traditional power generation.
It appears the Copenhagen get together is unlikely to generate much more than a promise to do something. However, it is encouraging that the National Farmers’ Federation (NFF) is actively engaged in the Copenhagen COP and using its alliances with 83 other countries in the International Federation of Agricultural Producers to bring some science and common sense into the emissions trading debate.
We can but hope they are persuasive and influential in the ongoing evolution of international protocols that do not have farming as a priority.

Back