The Forum > Article Comments > Is the Kyoto Protocol just a cop out? > Comments
Is the Kyoto Protocol just a cop out? : Comments
By Bernie Masters, published 13/11/2006So what if Australia produces more greenhouse gas per capita than any other country?
- Pages:
-
- 1
- Page 2
- 3
- 4
-
- All
Posted by Sams, Monday, 13 November 2006 2:12:42 PM
| |
There is no point in trying to get through to those who put on a song
and dance about Australia not signing the Kyoto protocol. They simply do not understand the argument that they are themselves promoting. I spent a considerable time yesterday trying to explain it to someone who had been politically blinded. It has become political mantra now and they do not require facts as they just get in the way. Posted by Bazz, Monday, 13 November 2006 3:12:08 PM
| |
The trouble with national emissions targets us that the easiest way for a country to cut its emission is to import emissions-intensive products such as energy from somewhere else. Conversely, the largest per capita emitters tend to be major exporters of energy and other emissions-intensive products. Hence, according to the WRI, the world’s largest per capita emitter is not Australia but Qatar, followed by the UAE and Kuwait (we’re fourth) http://pdf.wri.org/navigating_numbers_chapter4.pdf (p,22).
Masters’ main point is right – what matters in cutting global emissions is not where something is produced, but how it is produced and how much of it is produced. For as long as the world continues to use minerals and fossil fuel energy, we minimise emissions if things are produced in the countries that make them in the least emissions-intensive way. For example, Australia’s gas exports to China generate significant emissions here, but because they replace extremely dirty coal fired electricity generation in China, they result in emissions there being lower than they otherwise would be. The net result is lower global emissions but higher Australian emissions. The way Kyoto is structured we could get no credit for the reduction in Chinese emissions to offset these higher Australian emissions. Signing up to such an arrangement would do great damage to our export industries and deliver to no gain in terms of reducing global emissions. Post Kyoto, I hope we get a genuinely global carbon tax or trading regime that encourages the most efficient production of emission-intensive products regardless of location, as well as providing the price signals that will encourage innovation and penalise pollution Posted by Rhian, Monday, 13 November 2006 3:19:27 PM
| |
Back in 1984, doing a macro-economics post-grad to strengthen a socio-political degree was surprised to find looking back in the large economics manual, which also contained Reaganomics, a chapter headed Economics and Protection, which was not used in the study.
Further, the chapter contained a suggestion that all discharge pipes from industries similar to Alcoa, should be fitted with monitors and the companies be made to pay accordingly for harm to the environment. Surely such a law should be brought in right now, and does anyone of our group know why this law was not made legal sometime since, not expected with the Reaganites but surely later with the Clintonites? Could say that as economic rationalism has helped greedy corporates gain a far stronger hold on our governments even since Reaganomics, guess that could be the answer? Posted by bushbred, Monday, 13 November 2006 5:22:55 PM
| |
Firstly to be nasty, but politically playful, it is worth asking if Murdoch and presumably his media trumpet climate change is real and an election is in the offing Johnny becomes a believer!
If Murdoch whose media did so much to hype the Iraq war changes his mind will Johnny? What if popular opinion perhaps doing some homework on the reality of Iraq war or even seeing change got with the mob and wanted as just and humane end to the mess of our making. Lazarus might have a quadruple bypass! Yes the whole world needs to use available technology. Much technology already exists the Rocky Mountain Institute perhaps one of the earliest real investigator of energy efficiency ways and then of technology but there are many other unused available technics. Aluminium in Australia, a big user of electricity, from coal fired sources. Some of the energy needed can be met, more expensively at present by the lower heat levels available from solar and maybe wind could do some provisioning. In all such enterprises much is available to make production much more energy efficient and thus reduce energy demand. If all homes were better designed or retro fitted. Entailing a cost whose payback time is low says Lovins, (Rocky Mt Inst) making a major difference to energy needs, solar hot water a added bonus. UK researchers claim that base load electricity, which is what Nuclear will produce can be provided from alternate sources, recent report to the UK Government investigating alternatives to Nuclear. Yes Australia has huge coal reserves so clean coal is in our interests but in the mean time there is much that could be done. The subsidies on many alternative sources has been continued by the Government recently. We have Uranium to sell, our current count needs the money. A Faustian bargain to accept the money for the danger of the waste and short term profit? Nuclear does not drive cars! Posted by untutored mind, Tuesday, 14 November 2006 8:40:00 AM
| |
Perseus “The only people making any sort of sacrifice for global climate will be the existing employees in countries like Australia who will lose their job.
And Beazley, the champion of the working man, will sign up for those job losses.” Agree, that is why the liberals have insisted that any agreement has to be equitable and not disproportionately prejudicing Australian competetiveness. I note the Europeans are suggesting every product be measured to record the amount of energy used and greenhouse gas produced be recorded for consumer appreciation at point of sale. The “realist” in me says – why ? People will buy a colour TV regardless that its production consumed X megawatts of energy causing Y kilos of Co2 to be produced. The “cynical opportunist” in me says – hey I could develop the “calculating system” to generate such guff, there is a killing to be made here! And should they also include recovery of the energy consumed in making the bricks which were used in building the factory and the steel used in the roof and frame of the premises of subcontractors? The biggest single problem with Kyoto is who and how to do the sums. You suggest it was a bankers treaty, well it might be. The problem is bankers never did understand bookkeeping and Kyoto bookkeeping means “Start with an estimate of an opinion add an assumption, plus or minus an error factor….. and end up with whatever number you really wanted, regardless of the truth”. Keep on posting, yours is the most sensible comment I have heard about Kyoto. Untutored mind “Nuclear does not drive cars!” Yes but apparently you can use it to produce hydrogen (and oxygen ) for use in fuel cells which you can use in cars. Shifting back into optimist mode, I will trust to the ingenuity of man to resolve what the "worry warts" are presently predicting as the end of the world as we know it. A contraceptive in an airborne spray to dust the developing world with and stop the breeders from overpopulating maybe Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 14 November 2006 3:31:08 PM
|
So what? It means Australia is once again a disgrace in the eyes of the world, and I've never been more ashamed. That's what.
"now we should focus on how the world - not just Australia - can lower GHG emissions."
An so we are going to somehow force every country including China into signing the global carbon trading agreement are we? And if that fails, then we just go on arguing while the planet burns? That's what happened to Kyoto. Individual countries have to take responsibility for their own mess, not point the finger at others. Ever heard of "leading by example"?
"I don’t trust any poll conducted by green groups" ... "Finally, with regard to the UK government’s Stern report, Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, believes it’s a seriously flawed document"
So you'd prefer to trust the opinion of a crackpot researcher that every other climatologist in the world (thousands of them) is in complete disagreement with?