TONY EASTLEY: Surprisingly one of the main criticisms of this conference by green groups is that global big business is already undertaking the greenhouse reductions you say you will talk about. So are the governments then, represented here, just playing catch-up, dragging the chain, if you like?

JIM CONNAUGHTON: Well, actually, the efforts by the global big business are the direct result of very significant government incentive and partnership that we're going to build this effort on. The goal here, though, is to move beyond individual company projects - the construction of one facility - and trying to mass produce results, such as the capture of dangerous methane from coal mining. That's something we do very well in Australia and the United States. It's something that if China and India tackled seriously, could produce a clean, profitable source of energy, and reduce a massive safety, air pollution and climate change hazard.

In his speech today before the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, US Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman elaborated on the nature of the member organizations' goals and means for achieving them:

Mr Bodman opened the meeting by saying that private companies produced greenhouse gases and private companies would clean them up. Asked why companies would adopt clean technology without financial incentives, Mr Bodman said people who run energy firms have children and grandchildren too, and would like things dealt with effectively.

Quite understandbly, this kind of talk did nothing to mollify the conference's critics:

But critics maintain that emissions will not come down without Kyoto protocol-style targets and timetables, and say the new pact is really aimed at helping big Western companies expand into Asia. "The national government of Australia and the US are actually trying to get around the Kyoto Protocol," said Bob Debus, the state environment minister in Labor-controlled New South Wales. "They have called this conference today as something of a smokescreen to avoid making a commitment," he told the French news agency AFP.

Also to the dismay of critics, chief among them environmental economists and Australia's six state governments, one solution for reducing CO2 emissions not on the table is carbon-trading, a regime whereby producers of said emissions reduce them, often by switching to more efficient or cleaner technologies, and then sell their unused allocations to others. Such a scheme, critics believe, will provide the necessary incentives for polluting industries to increase investments in newer and cleaner technology, thereby reducing emissions and mitigating global warming. The offical position of the US and Australian governments is not in concert with this point of view, however:

Australia and the United States, which have refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on cutting greenhouse gases, remain opposed to binding limits on emissions and have refused to set up national trading schemes, similar to one in place across Europe. Washington said carbon trading would simply move industries and emissions from one country to another. "If you impose a trade on CO2 (carbon dioxide), you're really pushing energy-intensive manufacturing out of our country to another country, where the greenhouse gases still go up into the atmosphere," James Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, told Reuters. "So we have to be careful about a good tool, applied in the wrong setting," he said.

Still, US and Australian reluctance has not stopped other states and nation states from adopting such a trading scheme. Nine northeastern US states, Canada, and the six Australian state governments have all announced plans for both emissions caps and carbon trading to reduce greenhouse emissions. And according to Tony Beck of the Australasian Emissions Trading Forum, "The European carbon market grew significantly in 2005, with 390 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent traded in a market estimated at 5.45 billion euros ($6.54 billion)."

Meanwhile, as the conference gets into full swing, The Scotsman is reporting that coal burning is very high on the agenda.

Promoting technologies that reduce emissions of carbon dioxide in coal - with names like gasification, oxy fuel and geosequestration - grabbed the spotlight at the inaugural two-day meeting of the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate.

And though all the attention on coal seems to only further fuel protesters' anger...

On the streets of Sydney, coal has quickly become the whipping boy, with dozens of environmentalist protesters saving their harshest criticism for the industry which they say is a major contributor to global warming.

...coal executives see their time in the spotlight as a recognition of the enduring importance of this particular fossil fuel to many countries:

"The reason for continued interest in coal is the simple recognition that with global energy demand growing at a rapid rate, that demand can't be met without coal," said Mark O'Neill, executive director of Australian Coal Association which estimates that coal generates a quarter of the world's energy. Rather than banish it, coal advocates say it makes more sense to find ways to allow it to be burned more cleanly or to prevent the carbon dioxide produced from coal-fired power plants from reaching the atmosphere.

Finally, the Khaleej Times zeroes in on the major points of agreement and differences between environmentalists like Greenpeace, on the one had, and the business and governmental leaders of the six nations partaking in the conference, on the other. Both groups, it would seem agree that there should be fewer emissions. Both also agree that emissions from coal, the dirtiest of all fossil fuels, should be reduced as much as possible. Furthemore, both want to see greater spending on R&D for cleaner burning technologies and both desire greater integration between private and public institutions in solving the problem of greenhouse gas emissions.

Where the sides would seem to diverge is with regard to 1) the emphasis placed on renewable energy sources and technologies, probably measured by dollars comitted to R&D and 2) whether and to what degree industries, rather than governments, ought to "set specific targets or taxes on the amount of carbon" released into the atmosphere. On the first point of contention Greenpeace's position is as clear as a smog-free day, even though all their logic isn't:

At a peaceful protest outside the downtown Sydney hotel hosting the conference, Greenpeace spokesman Ben Pearson said his group wants the meeting to agree to pump money into renewable energy sources that do not contribute to global warming. Global warming has been blamed for rising sea levels and an increase in the frequency of extreme weather events, like the string of hurricanes that lashed the US last year. “It seems very clear that they need to cover themselves for the fact they haven’t ratified Kyoto,” Pearson said of the US and Australia. “They need to pretend they are doing something so they have erected this facade.”

Other groups, presumably ones sympathetic to Greenpeace's position, are equally clear about both the importance of specific targets and the need for massive investments in "clean" technology.

A coalition of non-governmental organizations on Wednesday called for the partnership to enact targets, timetables or market-based incentives to encourage the use of already-developed clean energy technologies. “The conference will fail if it doesn’t put in place (regulations) and strong financial incentives for industry to spend billions and billions of dollars on clean energy today,” said Erwin Jackson, a climate specialist with the Australian Conservation Foundation. “If it just throws research dollars to the coal industry to clean up their act in 15 to 20 years, we’ve missed an opportunity.”

The antitheses couldn't be more clear: on one side there is the Dirty Half Dozen, the world's six largest producers of greenhouse gases. The top three polluters- The US, the world's biggest greenhouse-gas emitter by volume; Australia, the top producer of greenhouse gases per capita; and Japan, a country which is well-behind its pledge of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 6 percent from 1990 levels- are being villified for prizing short-term profits, market-based solutions, and economic stability over renewable, clean burning, environmentally-friendly, but as yet not-wholly-viable technologies.

It's the Filthy Rich and Developed (the six countries account for almost half the world's GDP) vs. The Clean and the Green. Both would seem to believe they are on the side of the angels. While that matter is open to debate, one other is not: for the time being, at least, both sides inhabit the same greenhouse and, as Fred Pearce at New Scientist puts it, "the winning side in the climate debate will shape economic, political and technological developments for years, even centuries, to come." Expect to see the temperature of the rhetoric heating up in the days to come.

Tags: kyoto|
Global Warming |
Environment |
Climate Change|
greenhouse gas|
greenhouse gas emissions|

See also: A Belmont Club post entitled "A nightingale choked in Berkely Square" describes the premature deaths of over 4000 people from smoke-laden fog that blanketed London for 5 days in 1952. The post contains a valuable history lesson for those who, as Wretchard says, are "accustomed to imagining a cleaner environmental past"

Linked at Right Wing Nation | The Conservative Cat | Don Surber | Jennifer Marohasy| Carnival of the Green |

UPDATE: Holly Valero at Maine Democrats is not impressed with the results of the climate conference. Darnell McGavock of Independent Conservative reports on science that challenges "old environmentalists’ assumptions, that more rain forests are needed to combat “global warming”.

UPDATE 2: In the comments field of the aforementioned "nightingale" post, one Charles Martel said: "I had a friend in college. Your typical leftist wingnut. I asked him if it cost 50% of the gross national product to clean up the air an additional 1% and if there was no proof that that additional 1% would demonstrably improve life expectancy or quality of life would he be willing to make the expenditure. He answered as all leftists must- in the affirmative."

In response to Charles I said, somewhat facetiously, that "Now, in addition to answering in the affirmative, it would seem that positive acts of obeisance to the omnipotent and omniscient Japanese goddess, Kyoto, are also a must."

It seems that my insinuation that Greens and environmentalists would invoke God to their side in the fight to save the planet was not so far off. According to Australian blogger Tim Blair, Greens in South Australia are telling voters that Jesus would vote for them. Tim doubts, however, that Jesus would do such a thing. Why, he asks, would he vote for a rival faith?