It’s widely assumed that small rich countries, like Australia, can choose to do nothing about climate change, without suffering any adverse consequences. Like a dozen or so other countries, we contribute about 2 per cent of total emissions. So, whether we reduce emissions or not won’t (at least directly) have a big impact on the climate change we experience, just as an individual decision to engage in (or refrain from) littering, won’t have much impact on the amount of litter they see.
But this analysis assumes that countries that do make a serious effort won’t impose any sanctions on those that don’t. Until recently, this was a reasonable assumption since the most prominent laggards were China and the US, both of which can do pretty much as they please in international matters. But China and the US are taking their commitments seriously now, and are taking some big steps to reduce emissions. That changes the calculation for a would-be free rider.
The Harper government in Canada is already discovering this. Harper is a (barely concealed) climate denialist, who has attacked climate science, and promoted the work of ‘sceptics’. Having repudiated Canada’s commitments under the Kyoto Protocol on the grounds that it interfered with Canada’s aspirations to be an ‘energy superpower’ Harper imagined he would have no trouble securing agreement for the Keystone Pipeline, which is supposed to carry oil from the hugely destructive Alberta Tar Sands projects to markets in the US.
Canada is in the inner core of US allies, historically distinguished by its devotion to being a global ‘good citizen’. Unsurprisingly, the Canadians had plenty of favors to call in at the US State Department, which duly reported that the project was environmentally benign and should be approved.
But then everything went wrong for Harper.
First, it turned out that State had been too keen to return Canadian favours, and had relied on a consulting firm tied to the oil indsustry Then the US environmental movement, motivated in part by the Canadian government’s obvious contempt for the goal of reducing carbon emissions, made stopping Keystone a signature issue.
As a result, the Obama Administration has repeatedly delayed approval. Given the vicissitudes of US politics, any prediction of the final outcome is unsafe. For example, the pipeline might be a chip to be traded in bargains between the Administration and the Republican party (which strongly supports approval). Nevertheless, recent signals suggest that, in the absence of some new development, the pipeline proposal will be rejected.
Having assumed he would have no problems securing US approval, Harper has been forced into the humiliating role of a supplicant. He’s offered to take action to reduce Canadian emissions in return for US approval. His initial offer was laughable, and was dismissed as such. He didn’t propose any action on emissions in general, only to impose some controls the tar sands extraction process. And then, unsurprisingly, it turned out that none of the necessary work had been done.
If the output of the tar sands project can’t be piped to the US, Plan B is to ship it to China. However, this would require new port facilities on the West Coast and these projects are also running into fierce opposition. There is still a good chance that this hugely destructive project can be stopped, or at least prevented from expanding.
The lessons for Australia are clear. Major powers like the US and China can act, or decide not to act, unilaterally. But in a world where the US and China have committed themselves to meeting demanding commitments small rich countries that choose to renege will face significant costs.
John Quiggin 
“However, this would require … and” appears to require additional words 🙂 Fixed now, thanks
Well, adopting the role of a supplicant shouldn’t be too difficult for Tony Abbott, since it seems to be his default position when dealing with foreign heads of state.
…and Tony Abbott accuses UN official of talking through her hat on climate change.
Apparently, because we have had bushfires before, Abbott can’t understand what all the fuss is about.
I’m sorry, but straight after commenting, I saw this news item, in which our PM, Tony Abbott, is quoted as saying:
Interesting how Abbott knows that “…these fires are certainly not a function of climate change”. Now how the heck does he know for certain that he is right and the UN official is wrong? Does he have some special authority who tells him truth from falsehood? Can he prove there is absolutely no link between the severity and frequency of fires and AGW? Inquiring minds would like to know.
@Donald Oats
yes, he does.
“… in a world where the US and China have committed themselves to meeting demanding commitments small rich countries that choose to renege will face significant costs.”
Erm , what demanding commitments have the USA and China committed to so far?
Unfortunately for Abbott the CSIRO disagree
Link
Is the usa planning to reactivate that climate bill that obama would not fight for in 2010?
Graham Readfearn is all over it.
So Tony Abbott has moved from “climate change is crap” to “I believe in climate change, but am not going to admit that any bad things that happen are a result of climate change”.
I’ve always despised the “we only emit 1% of the worlds CO2, so what we do doesn’t make any difference” argument.
Try it at a budget meeting. “My department only uses 1% of our organisations budget, so you don’t have to look for savings here.” That’ll float like a stone.
The atmosphere and the climate system are the common good of all. In our commitment to the fair go for all, we should recognize our ethical commitment to reducing carbon emissions.
It seems to me that the free riders here are the fossil fuel companies. Tony Abbott may disband the Climate Commission to save money, but he is bound ethically to accept the science of Climate Change, in particular role of carbon dioxide as the thermostat process adjusting surface temperature.
Corporations are deemed to be legal, and in some cases, natural persons, so they too should behave morally and ethically. The iconic moment for both Tony Abbott, and perhaps Stephen Harper as well, will be adding his signatures to the secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement.
Do you think the pipeline would have been approved if Canada had stuck to its emissions targets?
@Rob
Probably, yes. Approval was widely expected, and had strong support within the US., It was only the decision of the environmental movement to make this a must-win issue that put it into doubt. If Canada could show that it had full domestic offsets, it would have been much harder to make the case that the pipeline represented a net addition to emissions.
@John Brookes If the same principle was applied to military spending the ADF would be disbanded tomorrow.
Australia’s involvement in Iraq was relatively puny yet deemed to be worthwhile.
Free riders on the storm
Free riders on the storm
Around government they swarm
Against them I now warn
They’re out collecting rent
And won’t stop until we’re spent
Free riders on the storm
There’s a killer in the air
In his birth we all share
Fly on a holiday
For a nice steak pay
Emit it from your ride
And sweet Bangladeshis will die
Killer in the air
Girl ya gotta be informed
Girl ya gotta be informed
Take your keyboard in your hand
Make them understand
The world on you depends
For many lives will end
Gotta be informed
Free riders on the storm
Free riders on the storm
Around government they swarm
Against them now I warn
They’re out collecting rent
And won’t stop until we’re spent
Free riders on the storm
i don’t mean to be snarkey but where did you hear this had failed? i read canadian news every day and i haven’t heard its failed. papers there are leading with senator calls harper a liar, in the senate. obama has a hundred thousand jobs in east texas riding on this and the rhetoric of energy security. harper has offered a joint monitoring program for the tar sands (as he’s dismantled any national monitoring capacity when he withdrew from kyoto) and i haven’t heard the americans response to that yet. there’s third alternative popular in some quarters in canada which is to ship it to ontario and refine it there. they cite already established thought long dormant refining capacity in ontario (sarnia) and a long established still viable pipeline from there to east coast usa markets. i don’t see how they can not develop the tar sands and maintain their lifestyle. really, what other product is there in canada? fur is over, wheat won’t do it. cattle are still banned by the americans. newsprint? blackberry? bombardier? this is long from over yet. -alfred venison
I believe I sat on a chairlift next to Harper years ago before he became PM and the creep criticised my dress sense. It may not have been Harper but some blonde haired political staffer the same age.
This is where the BCAs border carbon adjustments proposed by Dieter Helm of Oxford come into play. If Canada won’t practice carbon restraint but the US did there would be a hefty tariff on all tar sand liquids entering the US. Conversely if the tar sands went to China and escaped carbon penalty then a country like Australia would slap an equivalent tariff on Chinese goods. Joseph Stiglitz and others argue this may be the only way to stop carbon leakage.
Everybody enthuses about China’s efforts to decarbonise with wind, solar, nuclear and hydro. Yairbut they are supposed to have 750 GW of coal generation much of it built after 2000 that will still be puffing away in 2050. Ditto the US rules on new coal; believe it when you see it since the fracked gas miracle is now on the wane.
Phillip Adams LNL radio show last night covered the pipeline project. Apparently the Koch brothers stand to make 100 billion from it .Also the tar sands project is creating a massive inland sea of toxic water that is surrounded by cannons which fire every few seconds to prevent birds from landing near or on it as they would die if they did.
@Ronald Brak
A nice idea Ronald, but the meter needs some work 😉
Meter, Fran? I wonder what that could mean? Just looking it up… Hmmm, I think I can file that along with “tone” and “good taste” among concepts I don’t need. And now it’s time for me to enjoy some Bieber.
If instead of fighting a bushfire for a day, the PM Tony Abbott had spent it reading the scientific literature about the very real increasing risks to Australia with respect to bushfires, and spent time reading how the major worsening risk factor is due to CO2 and other GHG emissions, then Tone’s may have been in a position to appreciate why his carbon tax repeal is grossly negligent, and most clearly not in Australia’s long term interests. When Tone’s speaks, he should take to wearing a hat first 🙂
Back to work…
Oops, Tones, not Tone’s. Send me back to primary school now.
A useful link on the way Canadian supporters of the project are thinking
Money quote
@15 Love it
Thank you!
I have not seen any news that the USA and China are doing anything about CO2 emissions or plan to do anything about emissions. Have I missed a major new story?
@Ikonoclast
See theenergycollective dot com for a range of recent articles. Lots of gunners. China is burning about half the world’s coal and promises to cut back. When though? US replaced a lot of coal fired with fracked gas but that may revert. They’re not driving as much.
Ikon, see: http://www.nrdc.org/international/copenhagenaccords/
here’s my unsolicited prediction: i think obama will approve the pipeline; he will make the canadians dance & produce a spreadsheet or two of figleaf, and then he’ll approve it, or democrats will crash & burn at the next election & the one after that, damned for destroying american jobs & compromising american security. see you next january. -a.v.
@Nick
As I thought, lots of empty promises while actual emissions continue to rise. Resource shortages and economic collapse will drive emission reductions, nothing else. However, an intervening period of chaos, war and general conflagrations will very likely drive emissions even higher for a while.
For those interested in a quick primer on the HGH implications of the Alberta Tar sands project
http://www.desmogblog.com/top-10-facts-canada-alberta-oil-sands-information
It’s unlikely, the article notes that all this would be commercially recoverable. It goes on to note:
That would imply an amount equal to all the emissions of China and the UK from 1850-2008.
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2013/10/23/science-environment/us-emissions-20-year-low
It seems that the US Tea Party may be fracturing over, of all things, renewable energy …
http://www.thefifthestate.com.au/archives/56325/
(Reuters) – “China led a rise in global carbon dioxide emissions to a record high in 2012, more than offsetting falls in the United States and Europe, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said on Monday.
Worldwide CO2 emissions rose by 1.4 percent to 31.6 billion tons, according to estimates from the Paris-based IEA.”
Enough said.
“Enough said.”
From the very same Reuters article:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/10/us-iea-emissions-idUSBRE95908S20130610
Too little, too late. We are finally slowing the increase (read those words “slowing the increase”) in GHG about three decades after we should have stopped and reversed growth in GHG emissions. It’s like having a burst capillary cauterized when you are bleeding from an artery.
Sure, we should keep trying but one doubts we can save the situation now.
@Ikonoclast
I can’t blame you for being pessimistic, but I’m glad you agree we should keep trying, Ikon.
@Fran Barlow
It actually makes sense, since distributed renewable energy is consistent with Libertarian ideals – independent, individualistic and self reliant. I’ve often wondered why some Libertarians are so keen on nuclear energy, which is really the ultimate big-government technology.
Ikonoclast, there remains some small hope that pv prices will continue their descent and energy storage will follow suit; Germany intending to give storage the kind of leg up that it gave to solar could have a flow on impacts.
Of course to push past the barriers it has to be cheaper than coal that is heavily subsidised by externalised health and climate costs, and probably coal that gets regulatory favours on top of that. And we should not forget that coal is currently enormously profitable. Seems like a 200% or more markup on minehead costs? It can remain viable at much lower prices than the ones the miners currently complain about.
@Tim Macknay
True, and it also fits the authenticity of the local which is a key theme in populist agitation, but as I’m reluctant to put the concept “sense” anywhere near something the Tea Party (calling itself :”the Green Tea Party” would you believe?) claims, I feel a bit odd acknowledging that. Apparently, they’ve started trading barbs with another Koch-funded organisation — the AFP — which has been spreading — would you believe it? — disinformation about solar energy. You have to laugh or you’d cry.
A trip down memory lane, perhaps to the tune of “the way we were”
@Fran Barlow
Well, if the Tea Party ends up turning on the Koch Brothers as well as the Republican Party, so much the better. It’s unlikely to make any real difference to US policy though, unless this new “Green Tea Party” faction actually controls some Republican Congressmen or women.
The problem is that it is trupy hard to say that without global warming fire x or flood y would not have happened. It makes alot more sense to point out that climate change will increase floods and fires in the future
I suppose that even if the Obama regime does nothing about domestic emissions, they can still save some face by only dealing with other countries that do show some commitment. The irony of this position would be completely lost on the US of course, but it wouldn’t be the first time.
@Elmono
And equally, to argue that since one can’t rule out global warming as a predisposing factor in sever weather events and their secondary consequences (fire, flood, drought) and we can closely connect such weather events with the antecedent conditions specified by the IPCC, we ought to behave, in the absence of persuasive reasons not to, as if every such event were a manifestation of global warming, since we will be right far more often than if we assume the reverse and will certainly benefit far more than if we don’t.
harper is in trouble.
he appears to have threatened a conservative senator.
the senator denies having deliberately rorted senate entitlements, as reported in the media over the last three months.
the senator has made a statement in the senate this week to wit that harper personally, in the presence of the senator’s chief of staff, offered to write a cheque to pay the senator’s legal costs if he would take a fall & admit to rorting the entitlements.
the senator further claimed in the senate this week that harper personally threatened him with disendorsement & consequent loss of health benefits (he has a heart condition) if he did not take the money & “admit” he rorted the entitlements.
in short it appears the prime minister threatened a senator if he would not perjure himself.
its being called “the 2013 senate expense scandal”. an ikos research poll conduced overnight our time found 75% of respondents, who were asked “how would you rate the overall seriousness”, rated it “very serious”, 12% “somewhat serious”, and 11% “not serious”.
asked if its true, what should happen: 68% of respondents replied that harper should resign immediately vs 30% who replied he should serve out his term & face the electors.
respondents by two to 1 rate the senator over harper as more believable, one in five think harper is more credible.
harper’s conservative party of canada (cpc) has its national conference in calgary starting 31 october their time.
http://www.ipolitics.ca/2013/10/29/the-senate-scandal-poll-its-adscam-redux/
@Donald Oats
@kevin1
Very similar to the Harper Gov’t here in Canada. He and his cabinet know these things. One certainly does not have to consult those silly i>experts. Gut feeling (and a bit of bible reading) is much more reliable.
You have my sympathy: The idiots are now running Australia too.