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 > The 'no worries, do nothing' approach to greenhouse gas emissions > Comments

The 'no worries, do nothing' approach to greenhouse gas emissions : Comments

By Martin Callinan, published 26/8/2005

Martin Callinan argues the 'hard' evidence from the anti-Kyoto lobby has enabled the construction of a case against reducing Australian emissions.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
The Kyoto Protocol is being demonised because it is a fraud and a con, as well as a sweetheart deal between the EU and the third world. If it provided that each country is responsible for the emissions it creates, it would be fair enough; but it doesn't do that. If we burn a kilo of our coal, we get the blame. That's fair enough. But if we export that kilo to Japan and they burn it, we STILL get the blame. If we tell the Japs to import their coal from South Africa and they burn it, NO-ONE gets the blame. The restrictions only apply to annex 1 countries, so the whole third world, including India and China, are let off. With the rate of increase in emissions from China and forest burning in Indonesia we must be very close to the point where a majority of emissions come form the third world. the EU gets off because it imports coal and oil, for which it gets no blame, and Australia, as the only significant energy exporter in the list of Annex 1 countries, is singled out for discriminatory treatment. No wonder we are supposed to have the largest emissions per head in the world! Using crazy EU economics you could calculate anything. Look at the way their common agricultural policy is devastating the third world.
Posted by plerdsus, Friday, 26 August 2005 10:03:20 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
The problem for ordinary folk like me is that the “debate” about who and what causes emissions and whether or not these emissions cause global warming goes on between opposing groups of scientists with, presumably, equal qualifications but with opposing views. What hope is there for any understanding and conclusion for the layman?

Throw in the politicisation of the issue with “neo-conservatives” – for people who have probably always been conservative, not new at all – and references to the “Howard” government and its wickedness (we don’t know what the current opposition would be doing if it were in government) and I lose interest and get on with life
Posted by Leigh, Friday, 26 August 2005 11:18:47 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
To put it plainly, Australia is only accountable for what it emits within Australia -NOT what it exports. Here is the link to the Kyoto Protocol (http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html), do a search for 'export or exporters' and you find nothing.

plerdsus doesnt know what he is talking about and is seriously misleading.

If there was that 'export' rationale then OPEC countries (mainly Saudia Arabia) would be directly accountable for most of the greenhouse gas emissions by cars/planes/tranes in the world (because it controls the oil supply). The US for example wouldnt be accountable at all for their emissions from Hummers or SUVS as they could simpy say 'it's Saudia Arabias fault for supplying us with the oil - not what we demand to drive!'. That is a ludicrous argument and plerdsus seems to be emanating selective bias
Posted by BIM, Friday, 26 August 2005 12:48:51 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
Ask the Kiwis about Kyoto. The Chinese population passing wind does more damage to the environment than all the NZ emmissions (including their passing wind) put together.
But our cousins across the Tasman got a bill for $1 billion.
It aint easy being green.
The funny thing is, the Kiwis could stop all industrialisation, ban electricity and move into caves and it would not make one bit of difference to the global temperature.
It might help us win the Bledisloe Cup though.
Now, where's my SUV.

t.u.s
Posted by the usual suspect, Friday, 26 August 2005 3:30:02 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
An independently minded country like NZ could introduce a carbon tariff on imports. This could be quite high eg $10,000 in local currency on an imported car. This would be on the estimated CO2 produced in manufacturing the car. Of course it would be an administrative nightmare, for example how much of the aluminium in the car was hydro. Carbon tax could be kind to primary export nations and the Third World if they don't burn much at home. However it would invite hysterical retaliation by greenhouse rogue nations like the US and Australia. As the icebergs melt these kinds of ideas will get a more sympathetic hearing. The business-as-usual crowd will need to have their answers ready.
Posted by Taswegian, Friday, 26 August 2005 10:14:45 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
As unburdened by the truth as you are TUS, I can understand how difficult it must be find your SUV.

An overly keen and underly tasked intern in our office doubts your farting China claim.

A cursory examination of NZ’s emissions reveals them to total about 75 mt.

China’s population (1.1 billion) cannot possibly fart enough to emit this amount.

China’s livestock only manages to fart about 7 mt a year.

You need to have faith that there is more than a political link between the location of your SUV and where you left it.

Leigh, you’re right, there’s a lot of rubbish to have to cut through.

The intersection of science and politics is bound to be complicated. I try to be as clear as possible using universal terms. Clearly identifying the parties, e.g. names and organizations, and determining who benefits from their lobbying, is how I usually go about reviewing unfamiliar debates.

I take your point though.
Posted by martin callinan, Saturday, 27 August 2005 3:57:06 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
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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