Micro red con Sistema de Almacenamiento

The Howard Government rejected the Kyoto Protocol even though it agreed in the Berlin Mandate that developing countries should not be bound by emissions targets in the first commitment period from 2008–2012 (Hamilton, 2004). One of the Howard Government’s main reasons for rejecting the Kyoto Protocol was that it wanted these countries bound by emissions targets. It therefore went back on its earlier Berlin Mandate commitment. Howard stated his government was rejecting Kyoto because, “the arrangements currently exclude - and are likely under present setting to continue to exclude - both developing countries and the United States, for us to ratify the protocol would cost us jobs and damage our industry” (Howard, 2002).

The UNFCCC’s charter, agreed to by the Howard Government, required countries to try and achieve the goal of avoiding harmful climate change (UN, 1992), yet at the Kyoto negotiations the Australian delegation put forward a number of policies that were clearly designed to be to Australia’s advantage, such as the inclusion of flexibility mechanisms, and the inclusion of the controversial land-clearing clause5.

5

The clause allows countries with high rates of land clearing in 1990 to consider that year a base level. Australia had extremely high levels of land clearing in 1990. This meant that Australia's baseline was high compared to other countries, and its eventual emissions target was easier to achieve (Hamilton, 2001).

Realist thinkers would view this behaviour as a sign that the international system above the level of the nation-state is in anarchy. Countries do not adhere to the rules of international institutions such as the UNFCCC, so the Howard

Government’s actions would have come as no surprise to a realist.

In the data, there are numerous references to keeping Australia’s competitive

advantage over other nations in the region. This aggressive approach was also clear in the Howard Government’s negotiations of the Protocol itself. Frequently in the data, it is apparent that the Howard Government valued economic stability over environmental concerns. Given the competitive nature of the world economy, the Howard Government’s behaviour can be explained by reference to the realist contention that countries are only able to make gains relative to each other, not absolute gains. The way the Howard Government advocated keeping its competitive edge over regional rivals also lends support to the realist assertion that countries are inherently self-interested.

Realists consider that international cooperation is untrustworthy and short-lived. The Howard Government’s refusal to cooperate with the Kyoto Protocol supports this belief, although the data does not contain a great deal of evidence that either supports or weakens the realist beliefs about cooperation.

A term often found in the data, especially in the data from political sources, is ‘national interest’. The Howard Government emphasised many times a desire to pursue Australia’s national interest. Promoting Australia’s national interest was considered more important than both adhering to the spirit of the UNFCCC and being a good global citizen in environmental matters. Moreover, Australia’s national interest was defined in such a way that precluded solving a long-term, complex issue such as climate change. Several times in the data sourced from politicians the Howard Government made it clear that the national interest is better served by increasing the strength of the economy rather than by combating climate change. A fixation with the short-term national interest is something well explained by realist theory.

Realists argue not only that countries promote their national interest, but also that these interests are defined in terms of power, and are achieved with the use of power. The first part of this claim is supported by the Howard Government’s

preference for economic security rather than concern for the environment. The second part of the claim is supported, to a degree, by noticing the way the Australian delegation negotiated at Kyoto, and by how highly the Howard

Government valued its alliance with the USA. The Howard delegation’s negotiating tactics at the Kyoto conference, as seen from the data, were antagonistic and self- interested. The delegation used the threat of withdrawing from the negotiations to achieve a favourable outcome for Australia. Australia was allowed to increase its emissions by eight per cent during the first commitment period, as well as include emissions from land clearing into their 1990 emissions level baseline. The

importance placed on Australia’s alliance with the Americans also makes the case that the negotiators operated according to the principles of power politics. Allying oneself with a powerful nation is a common strategy to enhance one’s level of security.

As noted in Chapter 2, realists believe that the nation-state is cohesive, rational, the proper unit of analysis in international relations theory, and the main actor on the international stage. Analysis of the data reveals nothing contradicting the notion that the nation-state is cohesive. There is a suggestion in the data and also from the work of Hamilton (2001) that the Howard Government was not being rational in its rejection of the Kyoto Protocol. The force of this point is blunted by the consideration that one cannot determine if a nation is trying to be rational based purely on

outcomes. There is no evidence to suggest that either supranational or social forces influenced the Howard Government’s Kyoto policy. On the other hand, there are data in Section 5.6.2 showing business and industry did influence the government’s climate change policy. With such strong influence from non-government sources, it cannot be claimed that realist theory explains this aspect of Australia’s climate policy.

A recurring theme across the analysis is the dissimilarities between the Howard Government’s response to the Kyoto Protocol and that of other developed nations. With the same level of uncertainty surrounding climate change the Howard

Government rejected the only global response to the problem, whereas all other developed nations except the USA ratified it. This may offer evidence in favour of the realist claim about nations promoting their national interest. The Howard Government’s desire to pursue Australia’s national interest has conflicted with a global interest – a stable climate.

In all but one respect, realist theory can explain the Howard Government’s rejection of the Kyoto Protocol. It ignored the institutional rules of the UNFCCC because it viewed the international system as anarchic. It pulled out of the Kyoto process because it believed the agreement would hinder its competitive advantage over its regional neighbours. This reinforces the Howard Government’s concern with promoting the national interest. Australia under Howard exhibited the use of coercive power with its negotiating style. It also showed its concern for security issues by the significance it placed on its alliance with the USA.

Overall, the data suggest realist theory does explain the Howard Government’s decision to reject Kyoto. Based on the data analysed, the level of support for the realist thesis is not overwhelming, however, and one aspect of realist theory, the nation-state being the main actor in international relations, is undermined by the data.