In the last two weeks, the new Australian Government has begun to commit itself to a series of climate change policies which if fully implement will have a significant impact on the Australian economy and if not implemented by the rest of the world little impact on climate change.  It is a dilemna facing many smaller, well developed countries.

Australia has 21 million people and is responsible for about 1.5% of the world's carbon emissions.  It is one of the highest emitters of carbon because of the adundance and cheapness of coal as an energy source.  As a consequence approximately 85% of power in the most populated states of New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland is generated from coal.  Only Tasmania, which is wetter with lots of water has low carbon energy sources in hydro electricity.  Australians, public opnion polls show, want to lead on climate change and climate and the environment are seen at the top of the political agenda not just in the context of emissions but also water usage, where Australia's plundering of water from its largest river system, the Murray Darling is belatedly being seen as a national disgrace.

An emissions trading scheme has been proposed by the Government to begin in 2010, an election year.

  Already business is telling the Government that the start date is too soon and that business needs more time and incentives to move to a working environment where there will be a new cost, carbon, in the economy.  The decision has also brought forward a debate about what other countries are doing and whether it is wise for Australia to move boldly forward when it is not clear what others are doing.  Big business and the financial classes see a competitive disadvantage in moving forward unilaterally.  And the press is commentating along the same lines.  There is a sense that there might be some backtracking if there isn't more global unity.

Australia will need friends abroad if it is to implement its own climate change policies.  A willing public will become unwilling if the Government's climate change policies mean that it will cost the country and ecomony money and jobs.  Good intentions will lose momentum.  It has been suggested that Australia team up with Japan to present a united front.  Countries like New Zaaland and Canada could join them.  This would wise, even if it would cost a little more.  The world can't wait for the cumbersome process of the UN.  That still needs to take its course.  Bilateral alliances and standards are a way forward in the meantime.  It would increase the momentum for more universal policies on climate change and it would mean that the public who vote in and out governments would believe that their contribution to climate change will not misused or misplaced in a global solution.