The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Labor's great climate policy shortcomings > Comments

Labor's great climate policy shortcomings : Comments

By David Spratt, published 15/8/2007

Labor's 3C target is not enough: the current climate action political strategies are obsolete, something not recognised by Kevin Rudd.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. All
It is strange that people like Nobel Prize winning economists Kenneth Arrow and Thomas Schelling (in The Economists Voice for June 2007), like many people recognised for their ability to analyse issues, can state clearly that cost benefit analysis points towards the necessity of taking action to reduce CO2 emissions and people who have difficulty understanding the concept of doubt in science and the nature of probability can still rabbit on about anthropogenic climate change being unproven. It resembles those extraordinary claims that hundreds of scientists are pushing this line about climate change and human influence only so they can get grant money, that global temperatures have not risen since 1988 (despite the recent article about improved forecasting in Nature).
Posted by Des Griffin, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 11:18:54 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Plerdsus says “What we do in Australia DOES NOT MATTER” and believes “that many countries, particularly China, will do nothing to limit gas emissions”.

On the contrary, how Australia reacts to the challenges the world is facing does matter and China is doing far more than Australia in limiting its GHG emissions. Australia per capita is the largest emitters of GHG in the world.

It is worth repeating, global warming is a global problem requiring global solutions. Australia should play a part but our response and actions over the last decade has not only made it harder, but has embarrassed us in the eyes of the global community.

Robert McClelland in this article

http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/five-pillars-climate-change-policy-proves-shaky/2007/08/19/1187462083517.html

Says,
“It does appear the Government is willing to play catch-up on the international climate change debate. Australian businesses welcome this because they want clear price signals to underpin their future investment planning. But achieving the best climate change outcomes requires a strong track record, solid policy and creative diplomatic effort. The clock for Bali is ticking but the Government's pillars really aren't as supportive as they could be.”

I would not be surprised if APEC next month will be Howard’s ‘swan song’ in his efforts to give the illusion he is a global citizen in addressing global warming.
Posted by Q&A, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 12:34:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don’t misunderstand Xoddam –I just don’t agree with him:

Kyoto has hyped-up the need for urgent action. Yet, it has targeted first & foremost many moderate (in volume), western polluters - while effectively putting off till tomorrow the need to rope-in some of the worst (in volume) , developing nation polluters

As Plerdsus pointed out in an earlier post,it shows a red light to coal production in Australia ( a relatively clean operation ) but effectively gives a green light to coal production in Indonesia & Sth Africa-(less clean, less safe operations).

Kyoto doesn’t address the issue of population control-an important input into climate change. Forget the glib answer that "big western companies force" Third-World to over-fish, over-farm, deforest & under-mine the land. If the Third-World didn’t have large families they could better avoid the dollar inducements of the big companies ( foreign or otherwise) . Over-population forces them to prostitute themselves & their land . And the whole world will face the after shock when these over populated Third-world countries develop first world tastes, or when many of their excess populations migrate to First-World countries.

Kyoto merely relocates the problems. When the West, mindful of Kyoto imposes pollution controls. The factory moves offshore to a Third world country not constrained by Kyoto -result:
- Pollution goes on unchecked -only the locality has changed.
- Western countries experience a trade deficit
- Long term -more blame accrues to the west for FOISTERING unhealthy industries on third world countries
[ A clear case of heads you win, tails I loose]

Kyoto type thinking is effectively dead - let's seek alternatives …
Posted by Horus, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 9:00:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Global warming (or climate change as the Bush Administration inculcated into the IPCC vernacular) is serious. The Kyoto Protocol as far back as 1997 was going to be ratified by Australia, even the USA – then political ideology raised its ugly head.

The USA up till now has been the worst by volume GHG emitter – how do people propose we “rope them in?”

Australia’s (lignite) coal is relatively clean, not the “operation” itself. Victoria’s brown coal is very dirty, and China’s operations are said to be the worst in the world. Having said that, ‘Kyoto’ does NOT advocate a “red light to coal production in Australia.”

Global population is definitely an issue, BUT it is more properly addressed under the United Nations Development Program, its Commission on Sustainable Development and Agenda 21 – I endorse Q&A’s opinions on “education, poverty reduction and sustainable development” in this respect, and Australia is indeed a signatory to these conventions.

Horus makes a good point about ‘consumerism’ driven societies. However, we could ask the same question from a different perspective and “forget the glib answer that ‘big western companies force’ Third-World to over-fish, over-farm, deforest & under-mine the land.” Do people think we (ostensibly the “developed” world) are living in a sustainable way?

Of course ‘Kyoto’ is flawed and “let’s seek alternatives” – but it’s not just about ‘Kyoto’ as some would have us believe.
Posted by davsab, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 12:26:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just a clarification: Kyoto establishes emissions caps for Annex I nations, and emissions accounting and Clean Development Mechanism participation for all signatories, including South Africa, Indonesia and China which, unlike Australia, have ratified. Kyoto endorsed, but did not establish, emissions trading programs.

It bears repeating: *all* parties to Kyoto have established emissions accounting, including those countries which are not in Annex I. Emissions from fuel which is traded across borders are accounted to the country where the fuel is *burned*, not to the country of origin.

Nowhere does the Kyoto protocol or any other treaty impose a penalty on fossil-fuel exports from Annex I nations as opposed to anywhere else. Coal buyers are free to buy from the most competitive source as before. Emissions from energy consumption during *mining* are attributed to the nation of origin, but this is exactly where Australia stands to benefit most from improved energy efficiency. So too do South African and Indonesian mining operations, and since those countries are beneficiaries of CDM we may find that they adopt energy-efficient technology before us if we continue to drag our feet!

Australian coal exports suffer only as importers reduce their reliance on coal. In all proability our two main present markets, Japan and South Korea, will very gradually reduce imports. At the same time, China will likely experience shortages of domestic coal in the near future and begin to import large quantities. Australia does not stand to lose in this scenario at all, until China too has converted most of its energy supply to other sources. This could take many decades -- long enough that "clean coal" might even have become a reality before imports fall.

Australia's fossil-fuel resources stand to remain lucrative for a long time to come, no matter how our domestic emissions are reduced by international treaties and in any likely emissions scenario for China. Our greenhouse mafia is its own worst enemy.
Posted by xoddam, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 12:14:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Clear enough xoddam; issues would be more easily understood (and contribution to discussion would be more valued) if people actually read the 'Kyoto'.
Posted by davsab, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 3:15:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy