GEORGE BUSH KEY TO GREEN FUTURE - AFTER COPENHAGEN

Greg Hunt, The Australian 31 Dec 2009

It's time to switch from the UN to the Major Economies Forum, which engages the planet's
heavyweights
The forum, which was convened by George W Bush in 2007 and which has been continued by
Obama, brings together the 17 key states in global climate change
WISDOM can come at the most unexpected times. While strapping my knee this week after
another running injury the local physiotherapist reflected on Copenhagen and made the simple
observation that the only way to make progress on global climate action was to follow his two
simple rules for recovering from an injury.
First, isolate the key moving parts. Second, start the recovery with a succession of small steps
until you build confidence.
He was right. Translated from biomechanics to international relations, the message is: isolate the
big players in a room together, then start with small steps before building on them.
By contrast, the Copenhagen process put more than 190 moving parts, including Venezuela's Hugo
Chavez, in one room, along with 40,000 observers and demanded they commit to radical economic
surgery. In a bipolar power structure built around the competing interests of the US and China
there probably could not have been a less effective process or outcome.
The grand irony of Copenhagen is that the best hope for a genuine agreement on climate change
between the developed and the developing world now lies in George W. Bush's Major Economies
Forum, not in the UN process.
The forum, which was convened by Bush on September 27, 2007 and which has been continued by
President Barack Obama, brings together the 17 key states in the global climate change arena.
Australia won a place at the table under the Howard government and has continued its place under
the Rudd government.
Significantly, China, India and the US along with Europe, Russia, Brazil and Indonesia are
members of the forum.
It is this body which offers the best way forward for Australia and the world on climate action.
However, if the forum is to be the venue for real climate action there are three key lessons which
must be learnt from Copenhagen. First, it is time to speak plainly and acknowledge failure.
Copenhagen was a step backward, not forward.
While British, German and Swedish leaders acknowledge the UN process was a failure, Australia's
Prime Minister is almost alone in his panglossian declaration that Copenhagen was a success.
Although there are domestic reasons for wanting to justify the looming $1100 per family tax, the
refusal to acknowledge failure keeps us from the real task of bringing the US and China together.
The second lesson of Copenhagen is that China is back. China's growing economic and diplomatic
power has long been recognised. But Copenhagen told us that China is willing to exercise real
power to forestall a global agreement and maximise its own growth.

While the West's internal relations may be based on values or idealism, China's relationship with
not just the West but also its partners in the developing world is increasingly structured around
classic 19th century power politics.
This means China will not be moved by any Australian unilateral disarmament in trade
competitiveness; instead only a tough step by step negotiation with the US and its allies can lead
to a system which brings emissions reductions in both China and the West.
Copenhagen's third lesson is to be realistic.
By demanding the big bang approach to emissions reduction, climate activists scared off the
players with the most to lose from radical economic surgery, the US and China. Instead it would
be far better to have a series of modest three and five-year goals which can be achieved and built
on, rather than empty grand promises which are merely honoured in the breach.
Of course the UN process will continue, but it is time for Australia to help shift the main game back
to the US and China through the Major Economies Forum. In that context Rudd should write to
President Obama and present two key proposals.
First, kick-start the forum process through a March meeting jointly hosted by Indonesia and
Australia in, say, Lombok or Darwin.
The meeting would aim to establish small but measurable steps on direct action such as rainforest
protection, investment in soil carbons and real clean energy projects in India, China and the major
developed economies which could be achieved between now and 2013, not at some ethereal point
such as 2090.
Second, adopt an incentives-based mechanism as a common pilot platform for international action.
The US is already proposing incentives for protecting and enhancing the great rainforests of the
world.
This US approach of purchasing abatement rather than taxing economic activity is both marketbased and incentive driven. It could offer the world a test mechanism which does not threaten
trade competitiveness but offers practical action.
No doubt a joint initiative with Indonesia to bring the US and China together would appeal to our
Prime Minister, particularly as he would have bipartisan support for reinvigorating Bush's Major
Economies process.
In the meantime, we should not throw away our negotiating capital with China by unilaterally
taxing our exports to the middle kingdom while giving their imports a leg-up against Australian
domestic production in areas such as paper recycling. Instead, we should just get on with direct
action in Australia through greater use of solar, geothermal and gas energy and providing
incentives to improve carbon capture in our farm soils.
As Andrew the physiotherapist says, just keep it simple and start with small, but real, steps.