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 > A new climate pact that isn’t so new > Comments

A new climate pact that isn’t so new : Comments

By Ben McNeil, published 25/8/2005

Ben McNeil argues the new Asia-Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and Climate will undermine international efforts to reduce greenhouse gases.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All
I am surprised that so many people think so much of the Kyoto protocol, which is a sweetheart deal between the third world and the EU, and which particularly disadvantages Australia (because we are the only country in Annex 1 which is an energy exporter). Under Kyoto if we burn a kilo of our coal we take the blame; fair enough. But if we export the same kilo to Japan and they burn it, we STILL get the blame. On the other hand, if Japan imports the coal from South Africa, NO-ONE gets the blame. If we decide to reduce our emissions by shutting down our coal industry and telling our customers to buy their coal from South Africa, our calculated emission levels would be greatly reduced, but the CO2 released into the atmosphere would not be reduced by one molecule. It is the insane method of calculating emissions that is the achilles heel of Kyoto. Faced now with the situation where more than half of pollution comes from the third world (remember this includes India,China and forest clearing in Indonesia) we need a better agreement that will result in genuine warming gas reductions.
Posted by plerdsus, Thursday, 25 August 2005 4:10:08 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
If the post by Plerdsus is true, then Mr Mcneil's article berating the Australia and the USA for not signing up to Kyoto is quite mis-leading. The CDM rather than undermining Kyoto is actually doing us all a favour. With such a dopey system of carbon accounting it is no wonder people are sceptical.
Posted by bigmal, Thursday, 25 August 2005 5:13:26 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
Plerdsus,

You know not of what you write; behind your nom de plume,

a) Where in the Kyoto Protocol does it say Australia gets the ‘blame’ for Japan burning a kilo of Australian coal in their power stations?

b) Does more than half of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions come from “the third world”, as you say?

You’ve been mislead mate, and you are unwittingly misleading your readers.

Show us references.

Show us proof.

Pathetic claims made to peddle ideological beliefs help no one!

And gee, historically, what proportion of greenhouse gas emissions have come form, what you would call, “first world” countries?
Posted by martin callinan, Thursday, 25 August 2005 5:44:09 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
To our Forum,

The latest publication of the "Guardian" has a glaring introduction - "Climate change alarm as Siberian permafrost melts for the first time since the ice age"

Researchers who have recently returned from the region found that an area of permafrost spanning a million square kilometres has started to melt for the first time since it formed 11,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age. The researchers found that what was until recently a barren expanse of frozen peat is turning into a broken landscape of mud and lakes.

Climate scientists have reacted with alarm to the finding, and warned that predictions of future global heating will have to be revived upwards. In its last major report in 2001, the intergovernmental panel on climate change predicted a rise in global temperatures of 1.4C-5.8C between 1990 and 2100, but the estimate only takes account of global warmig driven by known greenhouse gas emissions. Dr Stephen Sitch, a British climate scientist, says that the methane seep from the melting permafrost would effectively double atmospheric levels of the gas over the next 100 years.

Looks like we should all stop quibbling about whether Kyoto was or is genuine or not and start listening to the climate scientists for a change, without anyone else or any country's political representative claiming it knows the best way to go about it.

Regards - Bushbred
Posted by bushbred, Friday, 26 August 2005 12:32:41 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
Here we go again.Have a look at a report from the Russkies themselves which gives the lie to the claim about the tundra melting

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20050822/41201605.html.

Also is the Plerdsus claim about how the coal is accounted for true or false? I thought what he described was precisley the reason Australia refused to sign Kyoto ie we get booked for coal we export but it depends upon to whom it goes. That is basically dopey stuff.
Posted by bigmal, Friday, 26 August 2005 8:39:36 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 drive!'. That is a ludicrous argument and plerdsus seems to be emanating selective bias.

Finally, Australia got a good deal from Kyoto as they were one of only two nations that could be actually increase there emissions by 8% beyond 1990 levels.
Posted by BIM, Friday, 26 August 2005 12:44:38 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. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

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