New York City, January 10, 2006

January 11-13, 2006, are the dates for the first meeting of the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (mind you - just climate as an afterthought - not climate change that would have been more affirmative). This meeting, at a high-level, is held in Sydney, Australia, right now - thanks to the time difference. We wrote about the process that led to the creation of the six country partnership in articles of April 12, 2005 and October 5, 2005 - you can find them using the SustainabiliTank.info “search” mechanism. AP6 was established July 28, 2005, and was expected to have its first meeting in November, prior to the Montreal conference; nevertheless, it was postponed for January 2006.

The Christian Science Monitor of today was the only US newspaper that wrote about the meeting, with high level US participation, that goes on right now. The only other US based news-source to write about this is Bloomberg.com, and we commend them for their awareness of the business implications of the meeting. Reuters and the environmental press are full with articles; so is the Australian press; but not the US press.

Bloomberg says that the six countries of the partnership account for 48% of both - world energy consumption and global greenhouse gas emissions - blamed for global warming. “The alliance does not commit the partners to specific emissions reductions or to emissions trading.”

The meeting of this AP6 group is co-chaired by Australian Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane and US Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman. the other four participants - China, India, Japan, and South Korea, are also represented by industry, energy, and some environment ministers like Mr. Ian Campbell, Australia’s Environment Minister. The US announced that US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was going but the press allowed for her canceling an Asian trip (no further information on the destination) because of the Israeli Prime-Minister’s health problems. Further US participants are; Paula Dobriansky, the undersecretary of state for democracy and global affairs, and James Connaugh, presidential adviser on the environment. The Australian Prime Minister, Mr. Howard, will be at hand.

To the point of this meeting let’s turn to “The Australian” of today “It has taken eight years for the proponents and supporters of a massively flawed and hugely expensive Kyoto Protocol to be challenged by a new international partnership set up to combat global climate change… Australia will not sign on a treaty that is bad for sustainable development…Astute observers of Kyoto consider that there is considerable merit to AP6. Scientists and engineers believe that post 2012, the only way forward in the spirit of the Kyoto treaty will be the adoption of a ‘clean development’ mechanism…This ensures that climate change is minimized and sustainable development aspirations are maximized without heavy impacts on national economies.” Good Orwellian talk.

Now, how do we get there? “They see an interesting partnership of two rapidly industrializing giants - China and India - and four developed countries. Of the six partners, five have extensive and growing
nuclear power programs and the sixth, Australia, is ‘the key supplier of clean, green nuclear fuel’ for such programs.” That clearly did not fly in Montreal! Add to this that Australia’s exports of coal to China were valued in 2005 at $400 million, or twice the previous year, coal technology is just as important to the powers assembled in Sydney. Total yearly exports of coal from Australia amount now to $14.7 billion. So the technologies favored by the US and Australia, and most corporate CEOs assembled today in Sydney, prefer to talk about “gen iv” safer nuclear reactors, and “clean coal” projects called “Future Gen” and meaning coal gasification, the firing of power generating turbines, with injection of the separated CO2 into underground cavities perhaps resulted from exhausted coal mining. All of the above without the hated targets. So it is the voluntary actions by a self serving industry that are called for to save the world.

Don Henry, the executive director of the Australian Conservation Foundation in Melbourne, points out that after 50 years of tackling pollution problems he knows that voluntary activities do not produce the needed results - laws is what is needed. He says that without targets and national legislation the new pact will disadvantage progressive companies as no one else would bear the costs. In the end the taxpayers “will pay a bomb rather than the polluters.”

A senior lecturer in energy systems at the University of NSW, Iain MacGill, said the key to the success of the partnership would be its position on the use of market incentives to cut emissions. The program would do nothing to protect the climate unless emissions were priced at more than $25-30.
“To start reducing emissions now we should be focusing on increasing the use of existing, proven abatement options, including energy efficiency, gas-fired generation and renewables.” This as reported by the Sydney Morning Herald.

China’s Ministry of Electric Power decided on wind farms already in 1994, changing regulation to make them viable; Japan is drafting a bill to impose a carbon tax on fossil fuels - for this pact to stop such positive moves would cause only harm to all of us. The danger is enhanced by talk that Australia and the US will make available funds to support efforts they are proposing, and the question rises if this is not in plain competition for China’s and India’s attention and to remove them from steps they have undertaken with partners of the Kyoto kind. Further, signs seem to indicate that an attempt will be made to capture into this new network further members.