[ad_1]
SYDNEY: On December 12, more than 70 world leaders gathered at the UN Climate Ambition Summit, which marks the fifth anniversary of the Paris Agreement.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison was denied a space to speak, in recognition of Australia’s failure to make meaningful climate commitments.
Meanwhile, the European Union and the United Kingdom have committed to reducing national emissions by 55% and 68%, respectively, by 2030.
READ: Declare states of ‘climate emergency’, says UN chief to world leaders
As welcome as these new commitments are, the Paris Agreement urgently needs to be updated. Since its approval, the production and supply of fossil fuels for export has not stopped.
And the big exporters, like Norway, Canada, the United States, Russia, Saudi Arabia and, of course, Australia, take no responsibility for the emissions created when those fossil fuels are burned abroad.
It is time for this to change. Australia is the world’s largest coal exporter.
READ: Five years later, signs that the Paris climate agreement is working
In 2019, the fossil fuel emissions exported by this nation, as well as the US, Norway and Canada, accounted for more than 10 percent of total global emissions, according to estimates from a research project on the carbon budget of the United States. Australia at the University of New South Wales. , that I run.
Exporting nations are not legally responsible for these marine emissions, but their actions are clearly in contradiction to the climate emergency.
AS USUAL
A 2019 UN report notes that governments are planning to extract 50 percent more fossil fuels than is consistent with hitting a 2 degree Celsius target and an alarming 120 percent more than the 1.5 degree target. Celsius, by 2030.
FILE PHOTO: Australia is one of the world’s leading coal producers. (Photo: AFP / William West)
Coal is the main contributor to this oversupply.
But instead of reducing their fossil fuel production, many countries are doubling and increasing supply. For example, in Australia, government figures show that greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels exported by Australia increased by 4.4% between 2018 and 2019.
Australia is the world’s largest coal exporter and approved three new fossil fuel projects in recent months: the Vickery Coal Mine Extension, Olive Downs and the Narrabri Gas Project.
READ: Comment: Southeast Asia wants to love wind power but shouldn’t trust it
This is a worldwide trend. Let’s take Norway as another example. Norway gets most of its electricity from hydroelectric power and has partially stripped its Government Pension Fund of some fossil fuels.
However, it is also one of the largest exporters of greenhouse gases through its gas exports, behind Qatar and Russia.
READ: Comment: Singapore could be a model for cooler cities in a warming world
The situation is reflected in the business world. Many large fossil fuel companies are proclaiming their emission reduction targets while continuing to push for new fossil fuel mining projects.
BHP, one of the world’s largest miners, declared that it is reducing its emissions, but in October the company increased its stake in an oil field in the Gulf of Mexico.
RESPONSIBILITY DOES NOT STOP AT THE BORDER
What sustains this situation is an outdated “territorial” model of liability for climate damage. Governments and businesses seem to think that responsibility stops at the border, not with the overall livability of the global climate.
FILE PHOTO: A crude oil tanker is seen in the port of Qingdao, Shandong province, China, on April 21, 2019. REUTERS / Jason Lee // File photo
Once coal, oil and gas products are loaded onto ships, they are no longer our problem.
Unfortunately, United Nations accounting rules, under the Paris Agreement, currently allow exporters to transfer responsibility for fossil fuel emissions.
We must move from this territorial model of responsibility to one that considers the entire chain of responsibility for climate damage.
So what should Australia, Canada, the United States, Norway, and other exporting countries do to address the excess supply of fossil fuels?
READ: Comment: When it comes to climate change, Japan’s leaders must preach
READ: Comment: China will bet big on clean energy to achieve carbon neutrality
First, they must acknowledge their responsibility, at least in part, for the emissions and associated damages caused by their exports.
Allowing compensation and mitigation financing to track the role played in the causal chain better ascribes responsibility and returns mitigation burdens to exporting countries.
Future climate negotiations, such as in Glasgow in 2021 (COP26), must adjust the scope of their targets to include robust reductions in the supply of fossil fuels in the next round of agreements.
Rather than focus solely on reducing demand, the process should function as a kind of “reverse OPEC” (the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries), where exporting countries are given ambitious targets to phase out their fossil fuel exports.
DRASTIC EMISSIONS CUTS NEEDED
The 2020 output gap report notes that global fossil fuel production will have to decline by 6 percent annually between 2020 and 2030 to meet the 1.5 degree Celsius target.
Australia produces relatively few emissions, but is one of the world’s largest coal and gas exporters AFP / TORSTEN BLACKWOOD
For Australia, this should mean that it includes the reduction of “exported emissions” as part of any net zero target. Australia’s exported emissions are twice its domestic emissions, a situation that cannot continue.
First on the list of what is needed is the phasing out of generous subsidies for fossil fuel producers. The billions of dollars currently being spent annually in Australia to subsidize and encourage fossil fuel exports are simply not consistent with the goals and spirit of the Paris Agreement.
Phasing out the supply of fossil fuels must also occur in a way that not only pays today’s big suppliers to stop. Governments implementing a transition must think very carefully about how to deploy scarce resources fairly to ensure a just transition.
Last but not least, governments must accept that the strong influence fossil fuel corporations exert over the political process is hampering global efforts to address climate change.
READ: Comment: The forces of climate action are reshaping finance in Singapore and around the world
READ: Comment: To combat climate change, investors must keep their shares in fossil fuels
Donations, turnover of industry staff to government positions, and the influence of fossil fuel lobbyists cannot lead to good climate decisions.
Banning such influence, particularly in future climate negotiations, would go a long way toward addressing undue influence from the fossil fuel industry.
Until the fossil fuel export industry is held to demanding targets and made to accept responsibility for the emissions associated with its products, the Earth will continue on its highly dangerous global warming trajectory.
Hear from an expert discuss how oil and gas companies are shifting to a carbon neutral world:
Jeremy Moss is Professor of Political Philosophy at UNSW. This comment first appeared on The Conversation.
