| Securing the world for nukes and fossil fools |
 |
 |
 |
| Written by Geoff Evans, Mineral Policy Institute |
|
Securing the world for nukes and fossil fools
Introduction Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum was established in 1989 to facilitate economic growth, intensify economic and technical cooperation and enhancing a sense of community in a region that is home to more than 2.6 billion people. APEC includes 21 countries (though bizarrely it is not countries where people live, but economies where people produce and consume, that join APEC). Current members are Australia; Brunei Darussalam; Canada; Chile; People's Republic of China; Hong Kong, China; Indonesia; Japan; Republic of Korea; Malaysia; Mexico; New Zealand; Papua New Guinea; Peru; the Republic of the Philippines; the Russian Federation; Singapore; Chinese Taipei; Thailand; United States of America and ƒâ€š  Viet Nam. India is seeking APEC membership at the 2007 forum. APEC member countries comprise approximately 56% of world GDP and 49% of world trade. The region includes the most fast-growing economies of the world and energy has been a major policy focus of APEC since its inception, and will be at the 2007 forum (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, 2007b). APEC's vision of a neo-liberal, free-trade-based development model was articulated clearly in 1994, when APEC Leaders committed to the 'Bogor Goals' of creating an environment for free movement of goods, services and investment across borders in the region through policy alignment and economic and technical cooperation by opening markets and reducing and eventually eliminating, tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade and investment (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, 2007b). The APEC framework is comprised of a series of working groups (WGs) and committees through which APEC conducts its programs and attempts to achieve its objectives. The Australian government has played a leading role driving APEC's energy policy, through APEC's Energy Working Group (EWG), and are the current convenors, with the Australian bureaucrat leading the programme, known as the "head shepherd". APEC Energy Ministers met in the Australian city of Darwin in May 2007 in the lead up to the Sydney forum under the theme 'Responding to a World of Higher Oil Prices and Environmental Challenges: Energy Security through Efficiency and Diversity'. The EWG purpose is to "further APEC goals to facilitate energy trade and investment, and ensure that energy contributes to the economic, social and environmental enhancement of the APEC community" (About the EWG, http://www.ewg.apec.org). APEC's major mission in energy is to promote trade in energy commodities and reduce impacts of tariffs or other constraints. Growing popular awareness and outrage that these energy markets are major contributors to climate change have forced APEC leaders to take account of climate change as a key policy issue at this year's forum. However key governments, including the host country Australia and the US, are attempting to steer the climate change policy away from planetary and human health and well-being, but instead trying to lock in strategies that essentially maintain business-as-usual for the benefit of oil, coal, and nuclear corporations. Australia and the US have worked hard over the last ten years to organise a bloc of high-emitting nations to torpedo global climate change mitigation efforts within the UN framework and the Kyoto Protocol. Australia and the US have led the establishment of an rival regime to the UN-led post-Kyoto regime through the formation in July 2005 of the so-called Asia pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6) to compete with Kyoto and promote a regime of "voluntary participation, non-binding, nationally declared targets based on greenhouse emission intensity, heavy private sector involvement and no penalties for non-compliance" (McGee and Taplin, 2006: p. 191). The draft APEC Leaders' Declaration on climate change, energy security and clean development being prepared by the Australian Government for presentation during the Sydney APEC meeting was leaked to the Australian media over the last few weeks. The leaked draft Declaration for the Sydney APEC forum shows that the Howard Government is attempting to use APEC for the same purpose: that is, avoiding legally-binding greenhouse targets and timetables for greenhouse gas emission reduction. Instead the Australian government is advocating vague aspirational reduction targets and generous subsidies that will lock-in fossil-fuel and nuclear-based energy systems for the long-term. This agenda is entirely supportive of the aspirations of government and corporate leaders of energy corporations selling dirty fuels and dirty power stations, governments relying on coal, oil and uranium exports for export income and following cheap and dirty development pathways. A Greenhouse Mafia The particular goal of US and Australian government policies and public relations is to shift policy from GHG emissions targets to reductions in carbon intensity. By focusing on carbon intensity rather than carbon emissions reduction enables major polluters to continue high per capita emissions and maintain business-as-usual while continuing to jeopardise the health of the planet while maintaining their profligate lifestyles and advantages for fossil fuel corporations - known in Australia as the Greenhouse Mafia (Pearse, 2007, Hamilton, 2007b). The self-styled Greenhouse Mafia driving Australian government climate change and energy policy, was exposed in 2005 as a cabal of influence peddling lobbyists, bureaucrats and political advisers who had a virtual revolving door of jobs over a decade from 1995-2005 working for energy-intensive industry associations including the coal mining corporations, power generators and the aluminium industries; as senior bureaucrats in key government departments developing policy ion energy and climate change issues; and as advisors and policy writers for Ministerial working on these portfolios. They proudly declared their success in hijacking policy regarding Kyoto, AP6 (Coal Pact) and nuclear energy, assisting the generous funding of 'clean coal' and carbon capture and storage and resisting transition strategies for a clean energy economy by blocking a carbon emissions cap, carbon tax, and high renewable energy targets (Pearse, 2007, Hamilton, 2007b). . Shifting policy goals from emissions reduction to the rhetoric of energy efficiency and carbon intensity, and shifting the benchmarks for emissions reductions from 1990 to 2005, are the most recent achievements of the Greenhouse Mafia reflected in the Australian government's APEC policy goals. Where the goal of the Kyoto approach is a reduction in absolute emissions below a baseline set at 1990 emissions for developed nations the approach of the Australian and US governments is focused on reducing greenhouse intensity, which is simply the ratio of greenhouse gases emitted per unit of GDP. Where Kyoto's benchmark year is legally-binding reductions against 1990 emissions, the Australian and US governments talk about aspirational reductions against 2005 emissions. A focus on reducing greenhouse intensity does not guarantee any absolute emission reduction, unless the intensity target is well below the rate of economic growth. If an economy grows at a rate greater than any reduction in greenhouse intensity then absolute emissions will increase. The APEC economies will grow on average at say 3% per annum over the next 25 years, yet the intensity reduction in the leaked draft Declaration for the Sydney APEC conference is 30% reduction over 25 years i.e. just over 1% per year, making specific this is a recipe for a substantial increasing of absolute emissions amongst the APEC nations (McGee and Taplin, 2006). Ultimately the Australian Government's goal is to protect what it sees as its own national interest, irrespective of the cost to the planet as a whole, or vulnerable communities in other countries. John Howard declares his commitment to a unilateralist and self-interested approach at a speech to the Melbourne Press Club in July 2007, when he said:
APEC, energy and climate change The countries in APEC are among the largest and fastest growing energy consumers in the world with the US, China and Japan the world's largest energy users, and energy demand surging in India, China and other regional countries, as they rapidly grow their economies and industrialisation. APEC countries account for around 60% of world energy demand, and the APEC region is a net energy importer. Climate change emissions from APEC are significant and likely to grow. Energy imports to APEC economies are projected to increase by approximately 92% between 2000 and 2020 as domestic supplies fail to keep pace with expanding energy demands which are being driven by economic growth, industrialization and urbanization (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, 2007c). Coal is predicted to be the main energy source for APEC countries over the next 20 years. Demand for energy is likely to grow over the next 20 years, with coal being the fastest growing commodity. The energy sector in APEC economies faces significant challenges. Clearly, genuine development, energy security and environmental sustainability are critical issues. The debate is about how to meet these two important goals. Energy investment in power generation is expected to take the major share of energy sector investment. China and APEC more generally is the major region where investments will be directed. In other countries, investments are dwarfed by the energy investments projected for driving the non-sustainable economies of China and the US. Demand for coal is projected to rise significantly on the APERC business-as-usual scenario. China is projected as the country where demand for coal will grow fastest. Demand for coal among APEC countries is also predicted to grow. Natural gas demand will also grow, with Russia and Australia the major suppliers of natural gas in the APEC region. Nuclear power is projected to grow. The APEC scenario involves energy sourced primarily from the climate-change causing fossil fuels of oil and coal, and from nuclear power supplied through large power stations in a liberalized investment and environmental regulations. APEC leaders talk about mobilizing private capital and international financial resources to fund the estimated US$3.4 trillion to US$4.4 trillion in energy investments needed over the next 20 years(Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, 2007c). The APERC projections would see countries which are currently net energy exporters, such as Indonesia and Malaysia, becoming net importers, losing independence and vulnerable to the whims of global, free markets and corporations. However, while these APERC scenarios for energy growth and growing demand for coal, gas and uranium predict rapid growth and only small growth for renewable energy technologies, alternative energy scenarios are being developed. Greenpeace, for example has developed an alternative scenario of global primary energy demand for 2050 in which coal would decline from current consumption of around 20% to less than 10% in 2050. Energy demand projections developed by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) which Greenpeace used as its reference scenario could be cut by 50% through energy efficiency measures (Figures 25 and 26 below). Investment in renewable energy technologies would be boosted through an array of incentives to enhance energy sovereignty and decentralized control, and based on mature technologies that can be deployed on a large-scale renewable energy would provide 50% of primary energy needs, with the remainder being met by natural gas, oil and coal (Greenpeace International and European Renewable Energy Council, 2007). Investment in renewable energy technologies of appropriate scale would enhance local communities' energy sovereignty and democratic control, creating there is less reliance on massive investment, debt, and control by unaccountable global or state-owned corporations and remote bureaucracies. John Howard's energy superpower wannabe vision for Australia Australia is a major energy supplier to the APEC region, and the Australian Government's aim is to increase the role of Australia as energy supplier, becoming an 'Energy Superpower', particularly as a source of coal, uranium and natural gas(Howard, 2006). The Australian Government is willing to break global treaties such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in order to do this, as demonstrated by its proposal to sell uranium to India, even though India is non-signatory of the NPT. The Australian Government, and both major political parties, Liberal and Labour, are using APEC as a vehicle for locking on to regional growth with unsustainable energy technologies for as long as possible, feeding the unsustainable production and consumption of the APEC economies. If China and India were to continue along a development pathway that mimics the levels of consumption of the US and Australia, fore example the heavy reliance on cars and disposable consumer goods, the planet could not accommodate the wastes generated, particularly GHG. An alternative development pathway is needed. Australia is the world's largest exporter of coal, and the world's second largest exporter of uranium after Canada (Uranium Information Centre, 2007). Australia has the world's largest reserves of uranium. Indirectly Australia is a major exporter of embodied energy through its trade in aluminium. Almost all of these commodities are owned and controlled by a small cabal of global energy and mining corporations, with Cameco (Canada) and the (Australian/British) BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto dominating uranium, and BHP Billiton, Xstrata, Rio Tinto and Anglo American dominating coal markets. These corporations have a legacy of human rights and environmental abuses, including the Ok Tedi mine, Bougainville and Freeport environment and human rights catastrophes in New Guinea as examples. The global minerals industry is becoming rapidly consolidated, with Rio Tinto's takeover of Canadian aluminium producer Alcan just one recent example, increasing the clout of just a few corporations on policies that governments like Australia bring to APEC. State-owned corporations are other major energy players in the region, and these institutions are as lacking in accountability as their private sector rivals. Locking in coal dependency The Australian economy is heavily dependent on coal for electricity generation and for export income. Coal is Australia's largest single export commodity and 80% of Australia's electricity is generated from coal-fired power. The Australian Government, led by a coalition of conservative National and Liberal parties, has committed itself heavily to lock the country further into coal dependency, at the expense of a shift towards renewable energy technologies. This is reflected in the disproportionate efforts to subsidise coal at the expense of renewable energy, reflected in amount of public funds towards coal-based technology research and development, compared to renewable energy research, the unwillingness of the Government to set a cap on GHG emissions, a price on carbon emissions or mandatory Renewable Energy Targets beyond less than 2% to create a viable market for renewables. It is likely that any price that might eventually be set will be set at a price to suit coal-fired power and investment in carbon capture and storage technologies. To boost this possibility further the Australian Government established a $500 million Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund is a flagship initiative of the Australian Government's Energy White Paper: Securing Australia's Energy Future, whose largest allocations are to 'clean coal' and carbon capture and storage technologies (Australian Greenhouse Office, 2006). Similarly, the Australian Labor Party (ALP)""which is in opposition federally, but governs all Australian states and territories (at the time of writing)""has committed A$0.5 billion to clean coal technology research and at the time of writing only A$50 to renewable energy research (Australian Labor Party, 2007). The ALP's National Coal Policy notes:
State Labor governments have invested heavily in subsidies to clean coal technologies, with the Queensland Government committing A$1 billion towards advancing the ZeroGen demonstration plant to a commercial phase (Olivier, 2007). The Australian Greens are the only major Australian political party that have indicated a need to make a rapid transition from coal dependency (Australian Greens, 2007). APEC and climate change The threat of climate change has forced APEC governments to reconsider energy options for the future, but still to maintain business-as-usual for dominant corporations. Australia's Prime Minister, John Howard, is desperately fighting for re-election and has been trying to use the APEC summit as an opportunity to develop a new international framework for a Post-Kyoto energy future under the rhetoric of 'energy security, climate change and clean development'. His hopes to use APEC as a major platform for international policy has been overshadowed by his buddy, US President George Bush, who has announced his own climate change forum in Washington in September as a prelude to the UN Bali conference where a new global climate change regime is to be debated. Howard had hoped to use APEC as a forum to round up regional powers, particularly China, Japan, Korea and India for an alternative consensus for an international regime with no definitive targets for emission reduction, no requirements for people to meet targets, but reliance on energy efficiency, clean coal and nuclear. In 2001, APEC developed the Energy Security Initiative (ESI), which comprises short-term measures and long-term policy responses to address the challenges facing the region's energy supply. These include programs on energy investment and trade; energy efficiency; energy technology; transport emission and alternative fuels; preparedness and adaptation to climate change; dialogue with business sector; and cooperation with other organizations (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, 2007a). The real agenda: Smoke and mirrors The leaked Draft Outline of APEC Leaders' Declaration on Climate Change, Energy Security and Clean Development reveals a deeper agenda of using the focus on energy efficiency and technology innovation and diffusion as a cover for avoiding flexible, aspirational global emission reduction targets for a post 2012 climate change response framework, that avoids the legal enforceable and specific targets under the Kyoto regime (Commonwealth of Australia, 2007). Specific goals of the leaked Declaration include:
Media commentators have noted that the Australian Government's key initiatives for the APEC summit would allow energy consumption to keep increasing unchecked, and would and set a weaker target than some APEC countries have already adopted, and that the energy intensity reduction target could be reached without any substantial changes to current policy settings (Minchin, 2007). Minchin (2007) notes that several APEC member countries, including Japan and China, have already introduced much tougher energy efficiency policies. Greenpeace Australia Pacific noted that locking into aspirational targets would see APEC:
People's vision Peoples' resistance to local and global economies being locked into fossil fuels grows, recognising that 30% of global carbon dioxide emissions come from coal-fired power stations and that the threat to environments and human well-being from nuclear energy. Alternative approaches focused on equitable allocations of GHG emissions based on a Contraction and Convergence model (Mayer, 2001), in which GHG emissions from developed world would contract and convergence with a rise in developing world emissions. Over a period of around 20 years emission levels should become roughly equal based on per capita allocation determined by a global cap. Regional links and global peoples' campaigns for 'nuclear-free' and 'clean energy' futures have been growing through grassroots campaigns of communities and region's being locked into unsustainable energy pathways, including the Hunter valley of new South Wales, Australia's major coal exporting region. Visions of sustainable energy futures have been articulated at local and global scales linking activists in places like the Hunter Valley with activists in other parts of the APEC region. The alternative to John Howard and George Bush's push climate change initiatives towards energy intensity and towards aspirational GHG emission goals, is for clearly defined and legally enforceable reduction targets in absolute GHG emissions under the Kyoto Protocol principle of common but differentiated responsibility between developing countries from industrialized countries. The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 report indicated that to avoid climate chaos global emissions must peak by 2015 at the latest, and reduce from 1990 levels by 50-80% by 2050 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2007). The Stern Report recommend target of 25% on 1990 emission levels by 2050, including cuts of 60-75% in the power sector (Stern, 2006). George Monbiot (2007) and Clive Hamilton have been debating whether Monbiot's proposal for 90% cuts by 2050 in rich countries, like the UK, Australia, Canada and the US, is too politically ambitious and disruptive (Monbiot, 2006, Monbiot, 2007, Hamilton, 2007a)Australian environment groups have advocated cuts of 20-30% by 2020 as minimum targets within industrialized countries like Australia, and that such cuts are possible while still meeting energy security and development goals, without relying on clean coal or nuclear as Monbiot and Flannery have proposed (Greenpeace International and European Renewable Energy Council, 2007, Diesendorf, 2007, Monbiot, 2006, Flannery, 2005). As the major historic and current contributors of GHG to the atmosphere industrialized countries must take the leadership in mitigating climate change, reducing their global emissions as promised in 1992 when Kyoto was agreed. The concept of developing countries emission limitations at the same absolute levels as industrialized countries has negative connotations of limiting industrialization to unacceptable levels and consolidates current different emissions per capita levels which favours people in wealthy industrialized countries (Estrada-Oyuela, 2000). Nicholas Stern's 2006 report identified that such a transition would be considerably cheaper than doing nothing, and that impacts on the global growth from such a transition would be minimal, a mere 1% of foregone economic growth by 2050 compared with current projections (Stern, 2006: p. ii) The alternative to the APEC business-as-usual (BAU ) vision is a policy shift towards energy and GHG emissions equity in which each person being entitled to an equitable share of the global atmosphere and GHG emissions at a per capita level that is ecologically sustainable. The Global Commons Institute has proposed a 'contraction and convergence' approach which proposes reaching equality in emissions per capita through two linked processes of contraction and convergence. The contraction process entails all government agreeing to be bound by a target of global GHG emissions that can safely be released each year, as determined through scientific review and criteria. The convergence process entails each year's emissions being shared out among countries so that every country converges on the same allocation per inhabitant by an agreed date. (Estrada-Oyuela, 2000). The main beneficiaries of such an approach would be people in developing countries, including in the industrialising economies of India, China and APEC where per capita emissions of GHG are far below Australian and US per capita emissions. Of course such a strategy would put responsibility on citizens, governments and corporations in wealthy industrialised countries like US, Canada, Australia, Japan and Europe which have a disproportionate share of GHG to live sustainability and end profligate use of energy. Such a process might cause some transition problems but would actually stimulate research and development into energy efficiency and clean energy technologies. Local and global struggles linked The Hunter Valley is a useful case study of the challenges and opportunities confronting a community and region locked into an unsustainable fossil-fuel-based economy under pressure to transform as concern about climate change grows. A growing coalition of farmers, workers, environmentalists, local, government officials, and residents in the Hunter valley have spoken strongly of the need for the region's economy to be weaned off coal, to a clean energy future "Beyond Coal", as depicted in the photograph below showing a community protest action at Newcastle as part of International Climate Action Day, November 4, 2006. Residents of the Hunter Valley are calling for a just transition to a more sustainable economy that would repair of the impacts of large-scale coalmining on local ecosystem health and community well-being; stop further investment in coal-fired power generation; and establish a local renewable energy industry utilising local skills and infrastructure to maintain the region's role as an energy generation centre. The term 'Just Transition' was coined to describe the process that links ecological sustainability, economic structural adjustment and social justice. The Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) is a pioneer in the theory and organisation around the Just Transition process. It states:
A Just Transition process offers both challenges and opportunities: challenges because existing social and economic relationships may be unsettled; opportunities because new ecological, social and economic relationships that emerge potentially offer greater wellbeing through sustainability. A transition to sustainability is a medium-term project, potentially an intergenerational issue, requiring a shift in values and institutional arrangements across social, economic and ecological dimensions to achieve structural changes in the economy and resource use (Connor and Dovers, 2004: 221). It describes the process currently being articulated by farmers, environmental organisations and labour unions in the region, and examines the ways in which local and international dialogue, political alliances and actions might be applied to facilitate a transition of the Hunter Valley's coal economy over the coming decades. Labour unions want to be key partners in a Just Transition process to ensure 'that displaced workers continue to work in a union environment, with all the benefits and protections that unions have offered in the past' (Canadian Labour Congress, 2000: 2). They seek involvement in transition processes to maintain their membership base and protect members' livelihoods and welfare, and to resist change where these might be undermined (International Federation of Chemical Energy Mine and General Workers' Unions, 2001, Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union Mining & Energy Division, 2006). The CLC identified the elements of transition programs to meet the needs of potentially displaced workers as: (i) Support for communities to increase employment in new, diverse industries based on sustainable production and public/service sector job creation; (ii) Support for re-employment, i.e. facilitated transition to new employment via career planning and advice, and preferential hiring for displaced workers in the new, alternative emerging industries; (iii) Protection of income from one to four years, with unemployment insurance or the subsidisation of income in non-traditional ways; (iv) An option for older workers of bridging to their pension at full retirement rate; (v) Re-education and re-training (vi) Research and development, public and private investment, and corporate responsibility to move towards more sustainable production well in advance of crises due to unsustainable production; and (vii) Where needed in communities dependent on one industry, economic diversification projects, including value-added local production, worker-based enterprises such as co-ops, and new community-based enterprises. (Canadian Labour Congress, 2000: 11) A Just Transition creates new opportunities, including far more jobs in the renewable energy sector than those displaced from mining. They are not necessarily jobs that the same people currently working in mines are going to move to, but it means there is a new sort of economy in the Hunter can be created over time. A report by the Greenpeace, the Climate Change Action Network (CANA) an other environment organisations found that a 25% renewable energy target by 2020 would deliver 16,600 new jobs to Australians, as well as generating $33 billion in new investment and enough renewable electricity to power every home in Australia (Rutovitz, 2007). Community, industry and government partnerships could ensure that a significant part of this industry could be located in coal-dependent regions, like the Hunter Valley, building on local expertise and research on power generation industry engineering and manufacturing skills, and using the sites and power distribution infrastructure of the current coal-fired power industry for renewable energy. The policy of Australia's peak labour union organisation, the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), recognises the opportunities in renewable energy, stating:
Local activists in the Hunter Valley have joined with national and international environmental organizations, including Climate Action Network Australia (an alliance of over 30 regional, state and national environmental, health, community development, and research groups from throughout Australia) and Greenpeace to promote a Just Transition as a key policy goal in their advocacy and campaigns for a shift to a clean energy economy (Greenpeace Australia Pacific, 2006, Climate Action Network Australia (CANA), 2005, Anvil Hill Alliance, 2005). Hunter Valley residents have linked with activists in Thailand, Hong Kong, China, Philippines and elsewhere in the APEC region to campaigns for a clean energy future at both the production and consumption end of the coal chain. Grassroots movements for a clean energy future linking residents, environmentalists and labour unions across the APEC region can also lead to a just transition to a sustainable and clean energy future for the region where decisions about energy futures can be controlled by local communities and democratic governments rather than imposed by corporations and government beholden to them. The experience in Newcastle when the region's major steelworks industry closed in 1998 shows that with adequate notice of the need for change""along with mobilisation of government, industry, unions and communities to gain the necessary investment into new industries and an alternative economy"" the trauma of transition can be overcome. Strengthening local and global movements and progressive people links can learn from such experiences to show that a more diverse, democratic and ecologically and economically and socially sustainable community is possible. References Anvil Hill Alliance (2005) Anvil Hill Alliance Statement. Newcastle, Anvil Hill Alliance. Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (2007a) APEC and Climate Change. Singapore, APEC. Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (2007b) APEC at a glance. Singapore, APEC. Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (2007c) Energy Working Group Singapore, APEC. Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) (2007) Principles and Policy on Global Warming: ACTU Position Paper. Melbourne, Australia, ACTU. Australian Greenhouse Office (2006) Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund. Canberra, Australia, Dept of the Environment and Water Resources. Australian Greens (2007) Climate Change and Energy Policy. Canberra, Australia, Australian Greens. Australian Labor Party (2007) New Directions For Australia's Coal Industry: The National Clean Coal Initiative. Canberra, Australia, Australian Labor Party. Canadian Labour Congress (2000) Just Transition for Workers During Environmental Change. Climate Action Network Australia (CANA) (2005) The Real Way Forward: Australia's Climate Change Strategy. Sydney, Australia, Climate Action Network Australia (CANA). Commonwealth of Australia (2007) Draft Outline of APEC Leaders' Declaration on Climate Change, Energy Security and Clean Development Connor, R. & Dovers, S. (2004) Institutional Change and Learning for Sustainable Development, Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar Publishing. Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union Mining & Energy Division (2006) Climate Change Discussion Paper. CFMEU Mining and Energy Division. Diesendorf, M. (2007) Greenhouse Solutions with Sustainable Energy, Sydney, Australia, UNSW Press. Estrada-Oyuela, R. (2000) Climate Change Mitigation and Equity. IPCC 2nd Regional Experts' Meeting on Development, Equity and Sustainability. Havana, Cuba, Global Commons Institute. Flannery, T. (2005) The Weather Makers, Melbourne, Australia, Text Publishing. Greenpeace Australia Pacific (2006) Climate change and clean energy: What the powerholders should do. Sydney, Australia, Greenpeace Australia Pacific. Greenpeace Australia Pacific (2007) Howard approaching edge of reason. Sydney, Australia, Greenpeace Australia Pacific. Greenpeace International & European Renewable Energy Council (2007) Energy [R]evolution: A Sustainable World Energy Outlook. Hamilton, C. (2007a) Building on Kyoto. New Left Review, 45, 91-103. Hamilton, C. (2007b) Scorcher : the dirty politics of climate change Melbourne, Australia, Schwartz Publishing. Howard, J. (2006) Address to the Committee for Economic Development of Australia. Sydney Convention & Exhibition Centre, Office of the Prime Minister of Australia. Howard, J. (2007) Address to the Melbourne Press Club. Hyatt Hotel, Melbourne, Australia, Office of the Prime Minister of Australia. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007) Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Geneva, Switzerland, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC. International Federation of Chemical Energy Mine and General Workers' Unions (2001) Labour And Climate Change, Brussels, Belgium, ICEM. Mayer, A. (2001) Contraction & Convergence: The Global Solution to Climate Change Dartington, Devon, UK Green Books. McGee, J. & Taplin, R. (2006) The Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate: A Complement or Competitor to the Kyoto Protocol? Global Change, Peace & Security, 18, 173-192. Minchin, L. (2007) APEC plan sets high energy target. The Age. Melbourne, Australia. Monbiot, G. (2006) Heat, London, Allen Lane. Monbiot, G. (2007) Environmental feedback: A reply to Clive Hamilton. New Left Review, 45, 105-113. Olivier, M. (2007) Queensland invests A$1bn in clean-coal technology. 20/3/2007 ed. Garden View, South Africa, Creamer Media's Mining Weekly. Pearse, G. (2007) High and Dry: John Howard Climate Change and the Selling of Australias Future, New York, NY, USA, Viking. Rutovitz, J. (2007) A Bright Future: 25% Renewable Energy for Australia by 2020. Carlton, Australia, Australian Conservation Foundation, Greenpeace Australia Pacific, Climate Action Network Australia. Stern, N. (2006) The Economics of Climate Change: the Stern Review, London, Cambridge University Press. Uranium Information Centre (2007) World Uranium Mining: Nuclear Issues Briefing Paper 41. Melbourne, Australia, UIC. Like it? Share it!
|
