The Forum > Article Comments > Gaping hole in greenhouse gas emissions > Comments
Gaping hole in greenhouse gas emissions : Comments
By David Leyonhjelm, published 4/3/2019Australia’s commitments, no matter what anyone thinks of them, are quite pointless unless they are conditional on action by the world’s big emitters.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- ...
- 6
- 7
- 8
-
- All
Posted by Taswegian, Monday, 4 March 2019 8:29:02 AM
| |
Very sensible. I can't help mention that I've been saying the same thing for over five years, see e.g. in this esteemed e-Journal "A Climate Policy for Grown-ups: unsolicited advice to the new government" on November 20 2013 http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=15728. See point 5 (of 6): "Don’t start forcing emissions cuts until you are certain that the world’s main emitters, and preferably the whole world, are doing the equivalent." And I stand by the other 5 pieces of 'advice' I gave then.
Posted by TomBie, Monday, 4 March 2019 8:47:57 AM
| |
Australia is 15th largest emitter in 195 global nations.
Per capita, Australia is the globe's highest or #2 emitter. Those who claim that Australia is a minor or even insignificant player are fooling themselves - we are the headline which other countries read. Posted by SingletonEngineer, Monday, 4 March 2019 9:22:59 AM
| |
The money we have wasted on subsidizing the installation of renewables would have been better spent on research and development that will make it easier for us and everyone else to reduce ghg emissions. This could include: helping the effort to develop red meat without the animal and nicer vego alternatives; greater soil CO2 sequestration; better carbon sucking trees; innovations in nuclear power; and more funding of pure science that will provide unexpected spin-offs.
We could also do pro-development R&D such as helping Africa develop higher yielding and more resilient crops. These are all no-regrets policies. They are justified even if climate turns out to less sensitive to greenhouse emissions than expected. Posted by David McMullen, Monday, 4 March 2019 9:39:11 AM
| |
"Australia’s commitments, no matter what anyone thinks of them, are quite pointless unless they are conditional on action by the world’s big emitters."
This is absolutely correct. We have known this for decades - since before 1990. A bipartisan agreed caveat was included in Australia's commitment to the 'Toronto Targets': "11 October 1990 The Australian Government adopted an Interim Planning Target to stabilise greenhouse gas emission at 1988 levels by 2000 and to reduce emissions by 20 per cent by the year 2005 based on 1988 levels (known as the Toronto target). An important caveat was included in this target. This stated that measures which would have net adverse economic impacts nationally or on Australia's trade competitiveness would not be implemented in the absence of similar action by major greenhouse gas producing nations. Actions would be taken if benefits were realised in addition to the greenhouse gas emission reduction benefits, for example energy conservation. This became known as the 'no regrets' strategy. " https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/Publications_Archive/Background_Papers/bp9798/98bp04 It was fully recognised in the Treasury report on the modelling for the Rudd Government's Carbon Polution Reduction Scheme ('carbon tax') Just recently Professor Warwick McKibbin published the cost of taking action that is not part of a total world coordinated action. https://cama.crawford.anu.edu.au/publication/cama-working-paper-series/13677/global-economic-and-environmental-outcomes-paris And a week or so Brian Fisher (ex head of ABARE and lead author of chapters in three IPCC reports) showed the cost of the ALP and Coalition polices, including in terms of jobs lost and reduce per capita income and lost industry. http://www.baeconomics.com.au/publications Posted by Peter Lang, Monday, 4 March 2019 9:41:18 AM
| |
Once again this fellow is just so wrong on so many points its difficult to know where to start. Sure, some relevance could exist were the library analogy in any way actually analogous to what Australia does in this space.. but its far, very far indeed, from the truth. Once again he's simply spreading ignorance. Australia, Australian institutions and Australians in general are VERY proactive in this space. Climate deniers like Lyin'Hell are not part of the solution; they are in fact a major part of the problem.
Posted by omygodnoitsitsitsyou, Monday, 4 March 2019 10:41:39 AM
|
Apart from GHG abatement and peer demonstration there is also an early mover advantage to going low carbon. Imported oil will become unaffordable and east Australian gas is going that way. There's plenty of coal but in Australia the biggest users say they want to get out. If Australia went low carbon we'd have the moral authority to slap extra tariffs on goods imported from greenhouse rogues like China and India. There is much to gain from going low carbon ASAP.