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]

The article discusses the problematic aspects of carbon dioxide emissions trading schemes (ETS) in Australia. ETS have become a popular method for governments to use to try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power and energy stations. Because ETS was adopted by the Kyoto Protocol as a primary means of combating climate change, the government of Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has made ETS a policy priority. The author argues that any potential environmental gains made by using ETS are undermined by regulatory loopholes promoted by the energy industry and because ETS does not address the underlying cause of greenhouse gas emissions.

While Australia has signed both the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, it has failed to ratify the latter. It is nevertheless committed to meeting its +8% Kyoto target for greenhouse gas emissions, and argues that it is on track to doing so. This paper examines Australia's non-ratification politics and greenhouse policy efforts in an attempt to explain its contrary position of resisting Kyoto, yet embracing and pursuing its emission reduction targets. Australia's behavior as a carbon-intensive nation is highly significant in the global context, and this paper focuses on the domestic factors of interests, ideas and institutions, while also considering international factors in trying to explain Australia's non-ratification of Kyoto and climate change policy development. It finds that while ideas and institutions have been modifying influences in the domestic context, political and economic interests have dominated Australia's greenhouse policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]