Key Takeaways
- The Howard government was warned in 2005 that climate change was occurring more quickly than previously predicted and that many human and natural systems and economic activities in Australia were vulnerable.
- Officials warned that Australia’s dependence on coal would make balancing the negative impacts of climate change and the need for economic growth more difficult.
- The government was advised that the magnitude of climate change in Australia, combined with marginal rainfall in many key agricultural areas and a heavy reliance on irrigation, would make Australia more vulnerable to climate change than most developed countries.
- The government’s decision not to ratify the Kyoto protocol on carbon emissions led to concern among investors in Australian businesses about long-term regulatory uncertainty.
- The cabinet rejected recommendations to strengthen the country’s renewable energy target, designed to reduce emissions by encouraging more renewable electricity generation.
Introduction to Climate Change Warnings
The Howard government was warned in 2005 that climate change was occurring more quickly than previously predicted and that many human and natural systems and economic activities in Australia were vulnerable. This warning was made public by the National Archives, which released cabinet papers on Thursday. The papers show that officials warned the Coalition government of critical gaps in knowledge about the timing, location, and magnitude of climate-related damage, even as international cooperation geared up to try to limit the worst effects on the planet.
Vulnerability of Australia’s Systems
Officials warned that Australia’s dependence on coal would make balancing the negative impacts of climate change and the need for economic growth more difficult. The cabinet submission from the then foreign affairs minister, Alexander Downer, and the then environment minister, Ian Campbell, described the pace of global temperature movements as "unprecedented in human history" and said global concentrations of carbon dioxide were 30% higher than at any time in the previous 400,000 years. The submission also warned that the risk extended to Australia’s water resources, agricultural systems, electricity supply, transport infrastructure, human health, coastal and urban communities, and tourism.
Impact on Australia’s Economy and Environment
The magnitude of climate change in Australia, combined with marginal rainfall in many key agricultural areas and a heavy reliance on irrigation, is likely to make Australia more vulnerable to climate change than most developed countries, including the United States and many European countries. The submission said that water supply could come under significant pressure, in part due to reduced rainfall and more severe droughts across south-western and south-eastern Australia. These factors are also projected to lead to more frequent and intense bushfires and to negative impacts on Australia’s agricultural production, particularly where there are existing problems such as soil salinity and soil erosion.
Government Response to Climate Change
In 2002, the government had decided not to ratify the Kyoto protocol on carbon emissions, which came into force in February 2005. This decision led to concern among investors in Australian businesses about long-term regulatory uncertainty. Business told the government that the lack of a lasting policy framework was "inhibiting investment" in energy generation and energy-intensive industries. In 2003, the Howard government had vetoed a submission from ministers proposing an emissions trading scheme, citing concerns from industry leaders. A year later, the cabinet rejected recommendations to strengthen the country’s renewable energy target, designed to reduce emissions by encouraging more renewable electricity generation.
Shift in Government Position
By 2007, as the opposition leader, Kevin Rudd, increased pressure on the Coalition over climate, Howard changed his position to support a trading scheme, after a report by his departmental secretary, Peter Shergold. Philip Ruddock, who was Howard’s attorney general in 2005, said at a briefing on the release of the papers that the government was very aware of the emerging scientific consensus on climate change. Ruddock said that the potential of some technologies, including carbon capture and storage, had not yet reached the potential that had been expected in 2005. He called for the Howard-era moratorium banning domestic nuclear power to be removed.
Current Perspectives on Climate Change
The papers reveal that the Treasury supported a recommendation for development of an international climate strategy that was environmentally effective, economically efficient, and "does not impose an unfair burden on Australia". Downer’s position is less clear today. In November, he used a column in the Adelaide Advertiser to question the consensus on climate science, writing that the "only thing truly settled is that the planet has warmed since the Industrial Revolution". Downer argued that the cost of addressing climate should be carefully weighed. "We should make a fair and proportionate contribution," he wrote. "But there is no virtue in imposing vast costs on our economy for the sake of gestures that have no practical impact."