The Abbott government has again put itself on a collision course with US President Barack Obama, this time over government funding for coal-fired power plants.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
After adopting a contrary position to the US on the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, about which a final decision is expected within days, the Abbott government has been leading international resistance to White House moves to strip back subsidies for fossil fuels.
A leaked briefing paper, obtained by Fairfax Media, shows the government is using an international forum to frustrate efforts by the US, the United Kingdom and France to wind back export subsidies for new but environmentally harmful coal stations in third world countries.
The revelations call into question Canberra's readiness to cooperate with other major economies in the lead-up to global climate talks in Paris in December.
Environment groups believe Australia is running interference in order to protect its own coal export markets in Asia.
But the government is arguing it is in global environmental interests for developing countries to have access to the most up-to-date, "emissions-reducing coal-fired power station technology".
It says much of that originates from OECD countries such as Japan, Korea and Germany.
At OECD talks this month, Australian officials were instructed to oppose moves within the OECD's export credit group to curb government financial assistance for coal plants.
While most OECD members assist companies from their own countries to establish projects in other nations, there is a push now for any energy-related investments to focus on cleaner forms of energy.
However, the Australian government is arguing that limiting financial assistance to non-coal based power plants would send the wrong message to developing economies.
"1.2 billion people still live without reliable access to electricity, or without any access at all," the briefing note says.
"Reducing export credit terms will raise the cost of energy for some of the world's poorest people. It will also create the perception that the OECD doesn't respect the developing world's energy challenges – even though most OECD economies industrialised on the back of affordable coal-fired electricity generation."
Japan and South Korea are also against the proposal, which can only be passed if a consensus is reached by member nations.
Australia is arguing that restricting finance from OECD members would force developing countries to turn to less efficient technology from other parts of the world.
"This will harm the economic interest of OECD exporters and may result in higher emissions than the status quo," the briefing note says.
The Abbott government warned that if the proposal was adopted the OECD risked appearing "unsympathetic" to the needs of developing countries and "could hinder progress on a global climate pact".
Doug Norlen, a senior economic policy manager with Friends of the Earth, US, said the Abbott government was putting itself at odds with President Obama, who was using international forums to push other world leaders to reduce fossil fuel use in the lead-up to the Paris talks.
"This is interesting in several contexts, including in the recent context of the G20 where President Obama gave a very strong speech on the need to protect the Great Barrier Reef from damage from fossil fuel exportation," he said.
"As we go forward, the Paris meetings become an important place where countries need to stand up and declare their seriousness about climate change or shirk their responsibility."
But the government says if developed economies decline to invest in fossil fuels, the gap will just be filled by others.
"Actions taken by OECD members to vacate coal export markets or exports of coal power station technology will most likely be replaced by exports from non-OECD economies," a Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade spokeswoman said.
