Search

The widely held view is that effective action on climate change requires commitment by national governments to international agreements. Developed nations like Canada and Australia continue to fall short in their commitments to emissions reduction targets established under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Australia refused to ratify its Kyoto commitments until 2008 and Canada withdrew its commitment in 2011. Subnational governments in both countries have been active in developing policy responses to climate change yet remain largely excluded as serious policy partners in national mitigation and adaptation initiatives. This paper utilizes Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework to consider why subnational governments address climate change and the main factors shaping their policy choices. The experiences of the Australian state of Victoria and the Canadian province of Ontario provide examples through which to explore the factors contributing to climate policy opportunities and constraints faced by subnational governments in these countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Australia is one of the largest coal exporting nations in the world and its economy is underpinned by the availability of cheap fossil fuels. It is well documented that it has failed to act on climate change, and that the conservative Howard government was particularly hostile to international action. It is also well documented that 2007 was an agenda-setting period when climate change was elevated to national prominence. This paper details and interrogates the ultimately successful Labor national governments' efforts to establish an Australian carbon pricing mechanism. It considers whether irresistible normative forces for climate policy change overcame the previously immovable object of economic and political self-interest, and the power of the carbon lobby. In explaining complex climate policy dynamics, temporal scales and politics, it finds great utility in John Kingdon's pragmatic 'policy window'1 as an explanation for Australia's climate policy change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Technological innovation is the most politically palatable avenue for governments to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. It avoids less palatable alternatives, such as regulating social behaviour. However, technological innovation in advanced, liberal capitalist states such as Australia is the product of the interaction of science possibilities with market demands, and is primarily reliant on the choices of profit-seeking corporations. Therefore, interviews were conducted with key office-holders in Australia's most carbon-intensive industry sectors. The perspectives they offered challenge the conventional wisdom that Australian business desires less government intervention. Instead, corporate representatives expressed a desire for stronger, clearer and more strategic long-term government support. This is because a liberal economic basis for capitalism in Australia means government, more than the market, is central for climate innovation as opposed to normal market innovation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper develops the concepts of the climate discourse complex, and national climate policy regime, in order to analyse significant patterns in Australian national climate politics over the twenty-five years from 1988 to 2013. Six major discursive fields - scientific, ethical, economic, technological, political/legal, and 'everyday life'- contribute to the ensemble of discourses that constitute a climate discourse complex. The climate discourse complex in turn serves to frame and discipline climate debate and the articulation of a national climate policy regime. The composition of Australia's climate discourse complex has been dominated by the economic discursive field. Debates over 'old' and 'new' economic discourses have been the key drivers of and constraints on the trajectory of Australia's climate policy regime for much of the period under consideration. These debates have diminished and sometimes marginalized the influence of scientific, ethical and other discourses, contributing to Australia's weak mitigation ambition. The paper also suggests that significant changes in Australian climate discourses and Australia's climate discourse complex have largely been initiated by factors external to Australia, with the major shift occurring in the period 2006/2007. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]