Ross Garnaut writes off Pacific states on climate change
Updated
The eminent Australian economist Ross Garnaut has written off the prospect of saving Pacific states that are threatened by rising sea levels. He says they will end up having their populations relocated to countries like Australia and New Zealand. Professor Garnaut wrote the Australian government's review on climate change and how to respond to it. He says what's more worrying than the Pacific, is the fate of the more densely populated, low-lying areas of Asia.
Presenter: Australia Network's Elizabeth Byrne
Speaker: Australian economist Professor Ross Garnaut
- Listen:
- Windows Media
GARNAUT: I'm not sure they're very powerful actors, well I am sure they are not very powerful actors on the world scene. It's good to have attention drawn to that dimension of the problem, proportionately they might be more deeply affected than others, but that is actually a small part of the world problem. The South Pacific countries will end up having their populations relocated to Australia or New Zealand and the rest of the world expects that and in the end, we're likely to accommodate that so there's a solution there. Much more worrying is low-lying populations in some of the large and densely parts of the world, especially the great river valleys of Asia.
BRYNE: Which brings me of course to China and of course India, the two very large economies that are holding out against being bound to an international agreement. What would it take do you think for China to turn around and actually take part in the international agreement?
GARNAUT: Well, China's part of the international agreement, already part of the Kyoto agreement and it will be part of this one. The question is will they accept binding commitments. I think it is in China's own interest to accept binding commitments. China, like Australia faces high risks of dangerous climate change, lots of good science in China, Chinese leaders know that. What they've announced domestically is very far reaching. It would be powerful internationally if they bound themselves by treaty to doing that.
BRYNE: But do you think they will?
GARNAUT: I've been suggesting that they do that. I don't know, we will have to wait, but it's not beyond the realm of possibility.
BRYNE: If they don't, will there be any point to any agreement that's struck?
GARNAUT: Oh yes. Let's remember where we come from. You might think really it was silly at Rio De Janiero, at Kyoto and at Bali to agree that the developing countries wouldn't accept binding commitments, but that's what we did. And it was always envisaged in those meetings that there would be a stage process where the developed countries moved first and then the developing countries would accept stronger commitments later. Well, the developed countries didn't do what they undertook to do, so that's part of the history and one can envisage gradually growing out of that history through a series of agreements. It's important that we take strong action now. There's no prospect of avoiding high risks of substantial damage from climate change unless developing countries are significantly reducing emissions below business-as-usual from an early date. In my report, I was focusing on 2013. Well China is actually reducing emissions quite a lot from now or from a couple of years ago. So what they are actually doing is substantial, it is faster than I anticipated in the review, but what binding themselves to that outcome will do will give confidence in the developed countries and make it easier for other countries, especially developed countries, especially the United States, to go further themselves.
BRYNE: If we don't arrive at some kind of binding agreement, does that matter?
GARNAUT: It's a long time since I thought it was possible that there would be a binding agreement in Copenhagen. The good outcome in Copenhagen is an agreement that establishes a number of firm principles, that lays a basis for more detailed discussion of some outstanding issues over the next year or so. If that's done, it is a very strong outcome. The question is whether the agreement will be conducive to taking those extra steps.
