What The Heck Is Wrong With Australia And Global Climate Change?
You would think that a nation facing an arid future and having one of the largest
harbingers of environmental damage on the planet: coral bleaching in the Great Barrier Reef would be the biggest advocate of any deal to stall the melting of glaciers or better, save the planet.
Oddly this is not the case.
Instead, Australia is one of the few nations along with the United States that did not sign on to the Kyoto Protocol. It also has no problem holding up meaningful legislation in its senate meant to curb the warming of our planet. In a word: weird. Australia has some of the highest per capita carbon emissions of developed nations. Throughout Australia the land is becoming increasingly more arid by the day and citizens of Down Under are becoming all too familiar with water shortages and not just for sprinkling the lawn either.
This year (2010) Australia has decided to shelve plans for implementing a carbon trading scheme until the expiration of the Kyoto Protocol in 2012. This is more than ludicrous considering that climate change is happening "today" and not "tomorrow." So, what gives? One can only speculate as to why this nation actually is dragging its feet over an issue on which it could actually increase its international influence instead of depreciate it. One interesting insight into Australia's behavior can be gleaned primarily from what has been dominating headlines there in the last year: economic factors. Australia much like its partner in crime the United States has made more headlines for economic resources in the last year than it has for preventing climate change. What comes to mind for those of us that follow the news closely are headlines like: the Rio Tinto imbroglio. So what could possibly be influencing the climate policies of Australia? Coal? China as a competitor for resources? This is broad thinking but one can only be slightly intrigued that many a nation that stakes its wealth on its ability to mine for abundant resources in its back yard would have a problem on any policies that could have negative implications for such a lucrative industry.
Alone the rejection of the Kyoto Protocol should be enough impetus for Australia to seek a meaningful climate change policy. One that is resistant to popular sentiment among the voters there as well. It is not enough that Prime Minister Rudd make the case that the issue of climate change and greenhouse gases are merely the moral challenge of this and future generations. What is needed is action irrespective of the flip flop support of voters. If the prime Minister considers this issue to be important then advocate on behalf of it not simply when it is or is not popular according to the polls.
As we move deeper into this century our increasingly intertwined world will have to confront the challenge of Global warming with unity It is impossible for any one nation, group of people or whatever to assume that climate change holds a unique definition for their corner of the world. What happens in any part of the world, NOW happens everywhere.