DURING THE TWENTIETH CENTURY, THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH IS ESTIMATED TO
HAVE WARMED BY BETWEEN A HALF AND ONE DEGREE.�
THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE KNOWN AS THE �IPCC�, WHICH
IS AN INTERNATIONAL BODY OF SCIENTISTS AND RESEARCHERS, HAS FOUND THAT
ATMOSPHERIC CONCENTRATIONS OF GREENHOUSE GASES HAVE INCREASED IN THE
ATMOSPHERE.� THEY HAVE FURTHER CONCLUDED
THAT THIS IS MAINLY DUE TO HUMAN ACTIVITY AND IS THE MOST LIKELY CAUSE OF THE
GLOBAL WARMING THAT HAS OCCURRED.
AS NOTED IN THE REPORT RELEASED THIS WEEK BY THE CSIRO, AUSTRALIA, WITH
ITS FRAGILE ECOSYSTEMS, SENSITIVITY TO DROUGHT AND FLOOD, AND RELIANCE ON
NATURAL RESOURCE-BASED INDUSTRIES, IS VULNERABLE TO THE EFFECTS OF CLIMATE
CHANGE.
SINCE THE IPCC�S FIRST ASSESSMENT REPORT IN 1990 ON THE STATE OF CLIMATE
CHANGE SCIENCE, GOVERNMENTS HAVE BEEN WORKING ON A GLOBAL RESPONSE TO CLIMATE
CHANGE BUILT AROUND THE UN FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE KYOTO
PROTOCOL.� HOWEVER, AS YOU WOULD BE
AWARE, IN MARCH THIS YEAR U.S. PRESIDENT BUSH ANNOUNCED THAT HE OPPOSED THE
KYOTO PROTOCOL BECAUSE IT WOULD IMPOSE AN UNACCEPTABLE COST ON THE U.S. ECONOMY
AND DID NOT INCLUDE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES IN MITIGATION EFFORTS.� HE ALSO SAID THAT THE U.S. WOULD BE
UNDERTAKING COMPREHENSIVE REVIEWS OF ITS CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
POLICIES.� THE U.S. ANNOUNCEMENT IS A
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE DISCUSSIONS.� GIVEN THAT THE U.S. IS THE WORLD�S LARGEST
ECONOMY AND ACCOUNTS FOR 25 PERCENT OF GLOBAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, ITS REJECTION
OF THE KYOTO PROTOCOL HAS CALLED INTO QUESTION THE ENTIRE NEGOTIATING PROCESS.
BEFORE I GO INTO MORE DETAIL ABOUT THE U.S. DECISION AND AUSTRALIA�S
RESPONSE TO IT, ALLOW ME BRIEFLY TO GIVE YOU SOME BACKGROUND TO PUT THESE
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INTO CONTEXT.
IN RESPONSE TO THE IPCC�S 1990 ASSESSMENT REPORT AND GROWING
INTERNATIONAL CONCERN ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING, COUNTRIES ADOPTED THE UN FRAMEWORK
CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE AT THE RIO ENVIRONMENT CONFERENCE IN 1992.� THIS CONVENTION HAS BEEN RATIFIED BY 186
COUNTRIES, INCLUDING AUSTRALIA AND THE UNITED STATES.
IT CALLS ON ALL COUNTRIES TO TAKE MEASURES TO REDUCE THEIR GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS WITH A VIEW TO STABILISING THE LEVEL OF GREENHOUSE GASES IN THE
ATMOSPHERE AT A SAFE LEVEL.� IT CONTAINS
AN ASPIRATIONAL GOAL FOR DEVELOPED COUNTRIES TO RETURN THEIR GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS TO THEIR 1990 LEVEL BY THE YEAR 2000.� THAT GOAL HAS BEEN ACHIEVED BY ONLY A HANDFUL OF COUNTRIES.
IN 1995, THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY CAME TO THE VIEW THAT THE MEASURES
OUTLINED IN THE CONVENTION WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO DEAL WITH CLIMATE
CHANGE.� THIS WAS REINFORCED BY THE
IPCC�S SECOND ASSESSMENT REPORT RELEASED LATER THAT YEAR, WHICH SET OUT
STRONGER EVIDENCE THAT HUMAN ACTIVITY WAS CAUSING CLIMATE CHANGE.� AS A RESULT, A NEW PROCESS WAS INITIATED,
WHICH LED AFTER LONG AND DIFFICULT NEGOTIATIONS TO THE ADOPTION OF THE KYOTO
PROTOCOL BY THE THIRD CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES TO THE UNFCCC IN DECEMBER
1997.�
THE PROTOCOL SETS BINDING TARGETS FOR 39 DEVELOPED COUNTRIES TO ACHIEVE AN
OVERALL REDUCTION OF 5% IN DEVELOPED COUNTRY EMISSIONS COMPARED WITH 1990 BY
2008-2012.� THIS REPRESENTS A REDUCTION
OF ABOUT 30% BELOW BUSINESS AS USUAL EMISSIONS GROWTH.� TARGETS WERE NOT SET FOR DEVELOPING
COUNTRIES.
THE KYOTO PROTOCOL HAS NOT YET ENTERED INTO FORCE.� THAT WOULD REQUIRE RATIFICATION BY AT LEAST
55 COUNTRIES REPRESENTING AT LEAST 55 PERCENT OF DEVELOPED COUNTRY CARBON
DIOXIDE EMISSIONS IN 1990.� TO DATE NO
DEVELOPED COUNTRY HAS RATIFIED THE PROTOCOL.
AUSTRALIA WAS A KEY PLAYER IN THE NEGOTIATIONS ON THE PROTOCOL.� WE WERE INSTRUMENTAL IN HAVING THE CONCEPT
OF DIFFERENTIATION, WHICH RECOGNISES INDIVIDUAL NATIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES,
ACCEPTED AS THE BASIS FOR FORMULATING INDIVIDUAL COUNTRIES� EMISSIONS REDUCTION
TARGETS.
AUSTRALIA�S +8% TARGET UNDER THE PROTOCOL RECOGNISED OUR PARTICULAR
ECONOMIC CIRCUMSTANCES.
KYOTO WAS SEEN AS A MAJOR STEP TOWARD ESTABLISHING A BINDING GLOBAL
FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE.� BUT IT LEFT A NUMBER OF KEY ISSUES UNRESOLVED WHICH HAVE BEEN THE
SUBJECT OF INTENSE AND LARGELY UNSUCCESSFUL NEGOTIATIONS OVER THE PAST THREE
YEARS.
IN SIMPLE LANGUAGE THESE KEY ISSUES ARE:
-
THE EXTENT TO WHICH COUNTRIES SHOULD BE ALLOWED
TO MEET THEIR TARGETS THROUGH EMISSIONS TRADING AND BY UNDERTAKING EMISSION
REDUCTION PROJECTS IN OTHER COUNTRIES, AS DISTINCT FROM DOMESTIC MEASURES. -
THE EXTENT TO WHICH SINKS SHOULD CONTRIBUTE TO
MEETING TARGETS.� SINKS ARE ACTIVITIES
SUCH AS FORESTRY AND LAND USE MANAGEMENT THAT ABSORB GREENHOUSE GASES FROM THE
ATMOSPHERE AND STORE THEM AS CARBON. -
WHAT COMPLIANCE SYSTEM SHOULD APPLY AND WHAT
SHOULD BE THE CONSEQUENCES OF NON-COMPLIANCE -
THE EXTENT TO WHICH DEVELOPED COUNTRIES NEED TO
RESPOND TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES� DEMANDS FOR TRANSFERS OF RESOURCES AND
TECHNOLOGY -
HOW AND WHEN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES SHOULD TAKE ON
COMMITMENTS UNDER THE PROTOCOL
LET ME
NOW ELABORATE A BIT ON EACH OF THESE ISSUES.
TURNING TO THE FIRST OF THESE ISSUES, MARKET-BASED MECHANISMS SUCH AS
EMISSIONS TRADING HOLD THE PROSPECT OF SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCING THE COST OF
IMPLEMENTING KYOTO COMPARED TO A SITUATION WHERE EACH COUNTRY MEETS ITS TARGET
BY DOMESTIC MEASURES ALONE.� ECONOMIC
MODELLING SUGGESTS THAT EMISSIONS TRADING ALONE WOULD REDUCE THE GLOBAL COST OF
MEETING KYOTO TARGETS BY 80% AND FOR AUSTRALIA BY 20%.
AUSTRALIA HAS ARGUED FOR UNRESTRICTED USE OF MARKET-BASED MECHANISMS
INCLUDING EMISSIONS TRADING.� IT SHARES
THIS POSITION WITH OTHER NON-EU DEVELOPED COUNTRIES WHICH HAVE PROMOTED A
LEAST-COST APPROACH TO IMPLEMENTING THE PROTOCOL COMMITMENTS.� THEY ARE KNOWN AS THE UMBRELLA GROUP AND
COMPRISE AUSTRALIA, THE U.S., CANADA, JAPAN, RUSSIA, UKRAINE, NZ, NORWAY AND
ICELAND.
THE EU, HOWEVER, WITH SUPPORT FROM SOME DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, AND
REFLECTING THE VIEWS OF EUROPEAN GREEN PARTIES AND GREEN NGOS, HAS SOUGHT TO
RESTRICT THE EXTENT TO WHICH MARKET MECHANISMS CAN BE USED TO ACHIEVE
TARGETS.� THEY HAVE ARGUED THAT THE U.S.
WOULD AVOID SUBSTANTIAL EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS AT HOME BY PURCHASING RUSSIAN
EMISSION CREDITS ARISING FROM THE DOWNTURN OF THE RUSSIAN ECONOMY AND THAT THIS
WOULD UNDERMINE THE ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY OF THE PROTOCOL.� THE EU IS ALSO CONCERNED THAT THIS COULD
SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCE THE COST TO THE U.S. OF MEETING ITS KYOTO TARGET COMPARED
TO THOSE COSTS IN THE EU.� IN THIS
RESPECT, AN IMPORTANT ELEMENT OF THE EU�S POSITION IS TO ENHANCE ITS OWN
COMPETITIVENESS BY LIMITING ACCESS BY THE U.S. TO LOW-COST OPTIONS.
SINKS WERE A CONTENTIOUS ISSUE AT KYOTO, AND THE PROTOCOL�S TREATMENT OF
THEM REFLECTS A HARD-WON COMPROMISE.�
THE EU AND SOME G77 COUNTRIES ARE NOW TRYING TO LIMIT THE EXTENT TO
WHICH SINKS CAN BE USED TO MEET TARGETS.�
SINKS ARE OF CRITICAL IMPORTANCE TO AUSTRALIA.� THE DEFINITIONS AND RULES WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN AGREED WILL
IMPACT ON THE SIZE OF OUR ABATEMENT TASK AS WELL AS THE COST.� OF PARTICULAR IMPORTANCE TO US IS THE
PROVISION IN THE PROTOCOL WHICH WOULD ALLOW US TO COUNT REDUCED RATES OF LAND
CLEARING TOWARDS OUR TARGET.� THE U.S.,
CANADA AND JAPAN WANT TO HAVE ACCESS TO SUBSTANTIAL SINKS CREDITS FROM BROAD
LAND MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INCLUDING FOREST MANAGEMENT, CROPLAND MANAGEMENT AND
GRAZING LAND MANAGEMENT.
THESE TWO ISSUES � THE FLEXIBILITY MECHANISMS AND SINKS � HAVE THE
GREATEST POTENTIAL IMPACT ON THE COST OF MEETING THE KYOTO PROTOCOL
TARGETS.� IF THE COSTS ARE TOO HIGH, IT
BECOMES A DISINCENTIVE TO IMPLEMENTATION.�
IT IS AUSTRALIA�S VIEW THAT MINIMISING COSTS, WHILE MAXIMISING THE
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT, IS THE BASIS FOR AN INTERNATIONAL RESPONSE THAT WILL
ATTRACT BROAD ACCEPTABILITY AND ULTIMATELY ALLOW US TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM OF
CLIMATE CHANGE.
THE SHAPE AND NATURE OF THE PROTOCOL�S COMPLIANCE SYSTEM WAS AN ISSUE
LEFT UNDETERMINED IN KYOTO.� ONE OF THE
MOST DIFFICULT ISSUES IS WHAT ACTION WOULD BE TAKEN IF A PARTY FAILED TO MEET
ITS TARGET.� THE EU HAS PUSHED HARD FOR
A PUNITIVE APPROACH, WITH COSTLY PENALTIES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE, SUCH AS
REQUIRING ADDITIONAL EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS IN A SUBSEQUENT COMMITMENT
PERIOD.� IN CONTRAST, AUSTRALIA HAS
ARGUED THAT THE COMPLIANCE SYSTEM SHOULD HAVE A FACILITATIVE FOCUS AIMED AT
HELPING PARTIES OVERCOME THEIR IMPLEMENTATION PROBLEMS AND GET BACK INTO
COMPLIANCE.
THE EU�S AIM IS TO HAVE THE ENFORCEMENT APPROACH USED TO IMPLEMENT
OBLIGATIONS IN THE EU APPLIED TO INTERNATIONAL COMMITMENTS UNDER THE
PROTOCOL.� IN AUSTRALIA�S VIEW, IT IS A
COUNTRY�S POLITICAL COMMITMENT TO MEET ITS INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS THAT
UNDERPINS THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ANY INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENT � A PUNITIVE
APPROACH CANNOT COMPENSATE FOR LACK OF POLITICAL WILL.
LET ME NOW TURN TO DEVELOPING COUNTRY ASPIRATIONS.� LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES, AND THE� SMALL ISLAND STATES, HAVE WELL FOUNDED
CONCERNS ABOUT THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE.� HOWEVER, THE FAMILIAR NORTH/SOUTH AGENDA IS
PROMINENT IN THE APPROACH OF THE MAJOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES.� THESE COUNTRIES ARE SEEKING OUTCOMES ON A NUMBER
OF ISSUES INVOLVING NEW AND ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL AND TECHNOLOGY FLOWS IN RETURN
FOR THEIR AGREEMENT TO A PACKAGE OF DECISIONS ON THE ISSUES I HAVE JUST
OUTLINED.� THESE INCLUDE FUNDING FOR
ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE AND FOR BUILDING INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY TO DEAL
WITH GREENHOUSE.� THEY ALSO WANT
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER.� OPEC COUNTRIES ARE
PRESSING FOR COMPENSATION FOR ECONOMIC LOSS THEY MIGHT SUFFER AS A RESULT OF
ANY FALL IN OIL PRICES ARISING FROM THE EMISSION ABATEMENT POLICIES OF THE
DEVELOPED ECONOMIES.
FINALLY, LET ME SAY A FEW WORDS ABOUT THE QUESTION OF DEVELOPING
COUNTRIES TAKING ON COMMITMENTS, WHICH IS PROBABLY THE MOST DIFFICULT OF ALL
THE ISSUES, YET IS OF CENTRAL IMPORTANCE IF WE ARE TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
EFFECTIVELY.
DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, PARTICULARLY CHINA, BRAZIL AND INDIA, STRONGLY
RESIST ANY SUGGESTION THAT THEY SHOULD TAKE ON BINDING TARGETS.
AUSTRALIA HAS ALWAYS ARGUED THAT WE NEED A PROCESS LEADING TO DEVELOPING
COUNTRY COMMITMENTS TO CONTROL THEIR EMISSIONS.� SUCH A PROCESS IS NECESSARY IF WE ARE NOT TO DISTORT THE ECONOMIC
AND ENVIRONMENTAL OUTCOMES OF THE PROTOCOL.
DEVELOPED COUNTRY EMISSIONS WILL BE OVERTAKEN BY THOSE FROM DEVELOPING
COUNTRIES THIS DECADE.� EVEN IF
DEVELOPED COUNTRY EMISSIONS DECREASE DRAMATICALLY FROM 1990 LEVELS, INCREASES
IN THE EMISSIONS OF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES WILL ENSURE THAT TOTAL EMISSIONS
CONTINUE TO RISE.
AN INTERNATIONAL RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE WILL NOT SURVIVE FOR LONG IF
SOME COUNTRIES HAVE A PRICE ON CARBON AND OTHERS DO NOT.� UNDER SUCH CONDITIONS, AUSTRALIA WOULD LOSE
COMPETITIVENESS AND NEW INVESTMENT WOULD MOVE TO COUNTRIES NOT BOUND BY
EMISSIONS CONSTRAINTS.� THE
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROTOCOL WOULD BE UNDERMINED AS EMISSIONS
CUTS IN AUSTRALIA WERE OFFSET BY INCREASED EMISSIONS FROM THESE RELOCATED
INDUSTRIES.
THE SIXTH CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES IN THE HAGUE WAS SUPPOSED TO REACH
AGREEMENT ON THESE KEY ISSUES, BUT AS YOU KNOW, THERE WAS NO CONCRETE OUTCOME
FROM THESE TALKS.� THE KEY POLITICAL
DIFFERENCES WHICH SEPARATED THE MAIN NEGOTIATING GROUPS REMAINED
INSUPERABLE.�� IN THE FINAL HOURS, A
NEGOTIATION BETWEEN THE UMBRELLA GROUP AND THE EU DEVELOPED A COMPROMISE
PROPOSAL ON SOME ELEMENTS OF SINKS, USE OF THE FLEXIBILITY MECHANISMS AND
COMPLIANCE.
FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, THE UMBRELLA GROUP MADE A NUMBER OF
CONCESSIONS.� BUT EU MEMBER STATES COULD
NOT REACH A CONSENSUS ON THE PROPOSED COMPROMISE PACKAGE, WITH A NUMBER OF EU
COUNTRIES CONTINUING TO PUSH HARD-LINE COSTLY APPROACHES TO IMPLEMENTING THE
PROTOCOL.
HOWEVER, EVEN IF THE EU AND UMBRELLA GROUP MINISTERS HAD REACHED AN
AGREEMENT IN THE HAGUE, IT WOULD HAVE REQUIRED A LOT MORE WORK TO HAVE
DEVELOPING COUNTRIES SIGN ONTO IT.
THE UMBRELLA GROUP ATTEMPTED TO BRING THE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES ON BOARD
AT COP6 WITH A PROPOSAL FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
CONDITIONAL UPON THEIR TAKING ACTION TO REDUCE EMISSIONS.� HOWEVER, THE G77 NEVER REALLY ENGAGED ON
THIS OFFER.
AT THE CLOSE OF THE HAGUE MEETING, IT WAS AGREED THAT THE COP SHOULD BE
RESUMED LATER IN 2001 AND THE DATES WERE SUBSEQUENTLY CONFIRMED AS 16-27 JULY
IN BONN.
AS I HAVE ALREADY MENTIONED, THE ANNOUNCEMENT BY U.S. PRESIDENT BUSH THAT
HE OPPOSES THE KYOTO PROTOCOL HAS CHANGED THE ENTIRE NEGOTIATING CONTEXT.
THE EU HAS RESPONDED BY RE-ASSERTING ITS DETERMINATION TO RATIFY THE
PROTOCOL BY 2002 IN TIME FOR THE TENTH ANNIVERSARY OF THE RIO CONFERENCE, WITH
OR WITHOUT THE U.S.� THE EU MAINTAINS
THAT THE PROTOCOL COULD ENTER INTO FORCE IF RATIFIED BY THE EU, SOME EAST
EUROPEAN COUNTRIES, RUSSIA AND JAPAN, EVEN WITHOUT THE PARTICIPATION OF THE
U.S.
THIS MAY THEORETICALLY BE TRUE.
BUT THERE ARE BIG QUESTION MARKS OVER RATIFICATION BY JAPAN AND RUSSIA IN
THE ABSENCE OF PARTICIPATION BY THE U.S.�
WE JUDGE IT UNLIKELY THAT THE PROTOCOL WOULD ENTER INTO FORCE WITHOUT
THE U.S.
IN ANY CASE, THE EU POSITION IGNORES THE REALITY THAT ANY GLOBAL
FRAMEWORK, TO BE EFFECTIVE, MUST INCLUDE ALL MAJOR EMITTERS, INCLUDING THE
UNITED STATES.
DESPITE THE U.S. ANNOUNCEMENT, THE PRESIDENT OF COP6, DUTCH ENVIRONMENT
MINISTER JAN PRONK, WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE EU, IS WORKING TOWARDS SETTLING THE
ISSUES I OUTLINED EARLIER, FOLLOWING UP FROM WHERE COP6 LEFT OFF.
THE OUTCOME OF THE U.S. REVIEW OF ITS CLIMATE CHANGE POLICIES WILL BE OF
MAJOR IMPORTANCE TO FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS IN THE PROCESS.� THE REVIEW IS BEING UNDERTAKEN AT CABINET
LEVEL UNDER THE DIRECTION OF VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY AND IS LOOKING AT A WIDE
RANGE OF POLICY OPTIONS FOR ADDRESSING CLIMATE CHANGE.� IT IS CLOSELY TIED TO THE CABINET-LEVEL
DEVELOPMENT OF A DOMESTIC ENERGY POLICY.�
AN OUTCOME TO THE CLIMATE CHANGE REVIEW IS NOT EXPECTED UNTIL LATE
MAY/EARLY JUNE.� EVEN THEN, IT MIGHT
ONLY TAKE THE FORM OF SOME BROAD-BRUSH PRINCIPLES THAT SET OUT THE GENERAL
DIRECTION OF THE ADMINISTRATION�S THINKING ON THE WAY FORWARD.
WE NEED TO SEE THE RESULTS OF THE U.S. REVIEW BEFORE WE CAN START MAKING
EDUCATED GUESSES ABOUT THE LIKELY OUTCOME OF THE RESUMED COP6.� IT WOULD BE A MISTAKE TO PRE-JUDGE THE
OUTCOME OF THE REVIEW.� OUR INITIAL ASSESSMENT,
HOWEVER, IS THAT IT IS UNLIKELY THAT THE NECESSARY CONDITIONS WILL BE IN PLACE
FOR AGREEMENT ON ALL THE KEY OUTSTANDING ISSUES IN BONN.
SO, HOW HAS AUSTRALIA RESPONDED TO THE U.S. ANNOUNCEMENT AND THE CHANGED
NEGOTIATING CONTEXT?
PRIME MINISTER HOWARD WROTE TO PRESIDENT BUSH ON 11 APRIL OUTLINING
AUSTRALIA�S APPROACH TO CLIMATE CHANGE.�
THIS LETTER IS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.
IN THIS LETTER, THE PRIME MINISTER SAID:
-
THAT
AUSTRALIA REMAINS COMMITTED TO DEALING EFFECTIVELY WITH CLIMATE CHANGE; -
THAT
SINCE SIGNING THE KYOTO PROTOCOL IN 1998, WE HAVE WORKED TOWARDS REALISING ITS
POTENTIAL AS A GLOBAL FRAMEWORK TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE; -
AND THAT
A WORKABLE INTERNATIONAL FRAMEWORK TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE NEEDS TO BE
ECONOMICALLY MANAGEABLE AND INCLUDE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES.
THE PRIME MINISTER OUTLINED FIVE KEY ELEMENTS WHICH ANY EFFECTIVE GLOBAL
FRAMEWORK TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE NEEDS TO INCLUDE:
-
COMMITMENTS FROM ALL MAJOR EMITTERS;
-
UNRESTRICTED MARKET-BASED MECHANISMS, INCLUDING
EMISSIONS TRADING; -
AN APPROACH TO CARBON SINKS THAT CAPTURES BOTH
ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL OPPORTUNITIES; -
A FACILITATIVE, RATHER THAN PUNITIVE, COMPLIANCE
SYSTEM; AND -
ASSISTANCE FOR THE MOST VULNERABLE COUNTRIES TO
ADAPT TO CLIMATE CHANGE.
THE PRIME MINISTER SAID THAT UNITED STATES� LEADERSHIP WAS ESSENTIAL IF
EFFORTS TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE WERE TO BE SUCCESSFUL.� HE ALSO WELCOMED THE UNITED STATES�
INTENTION TO WORK WITH FRIENDS AND ALLIES IN DEVELOPING WAYS OF ADDRESSING
CLIMATE CHANGE.
WHATEVER THE OUTCOME AT COP6BIS, AUSTRALIA WILL CONTINUE TO IMPLEMENT ITS
SUBSTANTIAL PROGRAM OF DOMESTIC POLICIES TO REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS,
TOTALLING $1 BILLION OVER 5 YEARS.� WE
WILL ALSO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH OTHER COUNTRIES, INCLUDING THE UNITED STATES,
TO DEVELOP A TRULY GLOBAL AND EFFECTIVE FRAMEWORK TO DEAL WITH CLIMATE CHANGE.