Limiting the Production of Carbon Dioxide
Carbon dioxide production is linked directly to burning fossil fuels (coal, peat, oil and natural gas), biomass (wood, straw etc) and garbage for energy.
Countries in the developed world (including Australia) typically consume over ten times the energy per capita of people in the third world. There is growing international pressure on developed countries to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions[6].
It was therefore decided by the Keating administration that Australia should adopt the Toronto Target, which proposed a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 20% from the 1990 level by the year 2005, for all greenhouse gasses combined, to the extent that this can be achieved without adverse economic impact. This was subsequently modified at Kyoto in 1997 where most first world countries agreed to a 5.2% reduction on their 1990 emissions of greenhouse gasses by 2008 – 12 (with a large number of conditions and tradeoffs agreed to).
The Howard administration took the view that the Toronto goal could not be met without adverse economic impact. As a result, at Kyoto, Australia successfully negotiated an 8% increase from the 1990 emission levels (representing a substantial reduction in projected emissions).
Arguments against Toronto target included:
-
Australia can’t comply without disproportionate economic harm (relative to other developed countries) because of:Australia’s high proportion of energy intensive exports (coal and metals);
- our extended transport distances;
- our moral stance against nuclear power (many first world countries generate between 10% and 80% of their electricity by nuclear means and can comply by building more reactors).
-
Our relatively small population (making negligible difference to the planetary generation of carbon dioxide).
-
Australia’s very large area for absorption of the carbon dioxide we generate.
-
Unless the developing countries also comply, any effort will be useless anyway (we should instead be looking for advantage from the change).
-
The whole thing may be a scientific ‘storm in a tea cup’ and we should wait and see what happens before restructuring our economy.
Arguments for compliance included:
-
Only developed countries have the potential to lower greenhouse gas production;
-
If all developed regions adopt the same attitude nothing will be done;
-
If Australia’s economy is structured to be more than usually carbon dioxide intensive, then this is an argument for more effort to restructure, not less;
-
Australia’s economic model, showing high unemployment resulting from compliance, was suspect;
-
If we wait, by the time we see the effects it will be too late;
-
Australia stands to suffer more than some other areas from global warming and should be arguing for, not against, the Toronto Target.
Even the small increase in emissions negotiated at Kyoto represents a significant cut back on projected production and will force Australia to restructure the economy. We need to consider how this might be done to advantage.
The rate of energy consumption per person is tied to economic growth, while the overall growth in energy consumption is tied to population growth times the energy consumption per capita.
For example, in NSW the standard of living (measured by consumption per capita) is increasing far less rapidly than in developing countries. The population growth is modest by world standards (the birth rate is lower than replacement rate and growth [about 1% pa] relies on immigration and ageing). Yet the combined impact of these two forces is projected to double electrical energy consumption in NSW within two decades. This could be a conservative projection if there is increased processing of primary products in regional NSW or more ways are found to replace petroleum fuelled vehicles with electric vehicles. Compliance with the Kyoto target, for example, could spell the death of electric vehicles as a means of reducing air pollution in our major cities.
