Want to know what was actually done about climate change at the APEC meeting last week? Don’t ask Paul Kelly, Malcolm Farr or Christian Kerr or you’ll be left with the mistaken impression that it was somehow a greenhouse “milestone event”, “a resounding success that reduces emissions”, or “a very significant step forward”.

Malcolm Farr even called the Sydney Declaration a “potent document” that John Howard could take to the election as evidence of his international leadership on climate change. What utter rot.

In High & Dry I said it was a good thing that reporters such as Kelly, Farr and Kerr were tuning in to climate change—what a shame they still don’t understand the politics or the Howard spin. The bottom line is this: the Sydney Declaration on climate change requires no country to reduce greenhouse emissions ever—essentially it is the Howard-Bush response writ large—no binding targets and timetables, just lots of credit-taking for business as usual as emissions continue spiraling.

Before last week’s meeting, according to ABARE (which reliably released another self-serving report on the eve of APEC) emissions across APEC were on track to rise 130% above 2004 levels by 2050. Nothing changed with the Sydney Declaration —even if the non-binding commitments are delivered. Why? Because these commitments require APEC to do nothing more than what is happening already. This is why it was so easy to get all the national leaders to sign. Let’s look at what happened.

First of all, the leaders agreed that the world should set an aspirational goal to reduce emissions. This has been hailed as the first time the world’s largest emitting countries have supported global emission reductions. It’s as if no-one covering APEC (with the exception of a few like Tim Colebatch) has read the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. It committed over 190 countries (including all APEC members) to stabilizing atmospheric concentrations below levels that would constitute dangerous interference with the climate—in other words, reducing global emissions. Go back over the rhetoric of the leaders of all the world’s largest polluting countries and you will find thousands of statements supporting this concept.

The very idea for which APEC is now being feted by the partisan and the gullible has in fact been around for 15 years. Of course, the pedants will say the UNFCCC did not explicitly endorse a “global aspirational target”, but then nor did APEC–such was the lack of aspiration it didn’t even nominate one for the purpose of discussion! And with APEC’s emissions on track to rise 130% it’s no wonder the Sydney Declaration included no APEC-wide aspirational emissions target—not even a non-binding one.

But what about the other two other headline measures in the Sydney Declaration? Well there were two non-binding aspirational goals: to reduce the energy intensity of GDP across APEC economies by 25% by 2030; and to increase forest cover across APEC countries by 20 million hectares by 2020. Most journalists swallowed the spin completely without realizing these goals constitute no change to business as usual and no reduction in greenhouse emissions across APEC. Energy demand is set to come close to doubling across APEC by 2030, so the intensity target is nothing like what is required to reduce emissions. And because energy efficiency is expected to improve at a faster rate than the intensity target requires it has no impact on emissions across APEC relative to business as usual.

So emissions remain on track to rise 130% across APEC by 2050. The commitment to increase forest cover by 20 million hectares by 2020 is similarly hollow, and the implication that this will save 11% of global emissions downright fraudulent. Why? Well firstly because between 2000 and 2005 there has been a net increase in forest cover across APEC of 1.5 million hectares annually so a continuation of business as usual would see the Sydney Declaration target met. So, as with the intensity target there is no impact on business as usual emissions which stay on track to rise 130%.

Similarly, the various sideshow bi-lateral announcements during APEC have no impact on emissions here or elsewhere in the world. Not one of the joint-statements requires Australia or any other country to reduce greenhouse emissions, ever. As for the uranium and LNG deals, the argument that these reduce emissions internationally—that this is Australia doing its bit for the planet—ignores the reality that we are not the only provider of uranium and LNG in the global marketplace. It also wrongly assumes that but for our LNG and uranium these countries would merely burn coal (whilst never factoring in the emissions associated with our coal exports which ABARE projects to double by 2030).

Once again, it’s credit-taking for business as usual. And if you add together all of the funding announced by John Howard at all the APEC sideshows you get less than $250 million—the cost of just one of the 24 fighter bombers John Howard is buying against the advice of the defence department bosses.

Aside from the lazy reporting by media, the most frightening thing I read was John Howard’s reported comments that the Sydney Declaration and APEC exceeded his expectations. It shows just how low his expectations are.